HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/2008 AGENDA
FILE
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 D (360) 473-5280
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
1. BRIEFING: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS & PUBLIC RECOGNITION
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register (#AB08-143)
B. Minutes of Meeting - June 4,2008 (#AB08-144)
C. Minutes of Meeting - June 11,2008 (#AB08-145)
D. Renewal of Monitoring Well Lease with U.S. Navy at N.A.D. Park (#AB08-146)
E. Contract Award for Construction of Southwest Bremerton Residential Sewer Extension Pump
Station to PIVETTA BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. (#AB08-147)
6. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Contract Award for Construction of Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements to SERPANOK
CONSTRUCTION (#AB08-148)
B. Resolution No. 3062, authorizing expenditures of funds received from the 2008 Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) Levy Ballot Measure (#AB08-149)
C. Resolution No. 3063 (North) and Resolution No. 3064 (South), approving annexation
proceedings for two territories in the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) (#AB08-150)
7. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
8. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
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.
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
D
\
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/16/2008
BILL # AB08-143
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SA
...........................................................................................1
SUBJECT:
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 16, 2008
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Cathy Johnson
Phone: 473-5296
Claims & Check Register
SUMMARY:
Consent Agenda item. Approval of checks and electronic fund transfers.
ATTACHMENTS: Check Register.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
~~#.
CONSENT AGENDA [gJ
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARING 0
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
1) Check #'s 325077 through 325378 and EFT's 7906 through 7929 in the amount of$2,255,697.81.
2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending May 31, 2008 in the amount of $774,208. 71.
COUNCIL ACTION: [gJ Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
J ).\11 .'1! .1l\lIIIIP:
III J I. .
08 -/41-
'~8
."'."
,~ 1 .
.\CF:\\)r\ BILL
CIIY OF BIH:rvl LRT00J
CTI,)' COl :\('11"
.......................................................................................1
SLBJE(T: City (\HlIlCil \Ikcting ivlilll1lL'.'i
II)r Il1CL't i ng or
J u VI e.... -4 I .2.0 0 ~
C \1111111itkc \kctillg D~lk: N!\ .
C () l ; ;\ (' 1 I. ~'II ~ I II N <. j j)~ I k: _-~iliqndQ.=i.--j-~-~-e-~l (p i 200 8
Lkpartlllcl1t:.City (~olln~~____.
Presenter: 'vV ill ivl aupi n,
COllncil President
Phol1e: (360) 473-5280
Slil\IMARY: Attached is a sllmmary or the City COllncil J\1ccting held ~v nL 4 I 200 g
ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for ::rV ne.... 4 I 2,..00 S
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
C ITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
Council President
N/A
N/A
N/A
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
~
... ~flYo;L~
CONSENT AGENDA [B"
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARINCr 0
RECOl\IMENDED !\IOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
('O(i!\i('II. ACTION: [] /\pprO\c [-J IkllY II"! Tallie
[) COldlllllC [] No i\dJ(JIl
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 4,2008
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Chambers, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER 345 6tl1 Street, Bremerton,
Washington, Wednesday, June 4, 2008, at 5:30 PM, with Council President Will Maupin presiding.
Council Members present were Nick Wofford, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd,
Roy Runyon, Adam Brockus, Cecil McConnell, and Brad Gehring. Also present were Assistant
City Attorney Ken Bagwell; City Clerk Carol Etgen; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Brad GehrinQ followed by the invocation
provided by Associate Pastor Bob Westfall of Bremerton First Church of the Nazarene.
President Maupin announced that prior to the meeting, a Pre-Council Session was held to
discuss General Council Business.
MAYOR'S REPORT
. Was pleased that the Grand Opening of the new Bremerton Marina exceeded all their
expectations; and thanked the Port of Bremerton for providing a "world class marina";
. Thanked City Finance Director Laura Lyon, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and
Community Development Director Andrea Spencer for their work on the proposed SKIA
annexation; and also the work of Ms. Lyon on the LIFT proposal;
. Commented that a lot of new activity should soon be kicking in at the museum; and lastly,
. Mentioned that progress has been made toward finding a positive solution for the relocation of
the Municipal Court building.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION & ANNOUNCEMENTS
Adam Brockus encouraged the public to attend the 1 sl Public Outreach Meeting for the Manette
Business District Sub-Area Plan on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM in the
Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government Center.
Roy Runyon announced that the next District 4 Meeting would be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008
beginning at 5:30 PM in the Council Conference Room of the Norm Dicks Government Center.
The program would be "Pets in the City" with Rance McEntyre of the Kitsap Humane Society.
Brad GehrinQ reminded citizens to attend the Bremerton Farmers Market every Thursday until
October 9, from 4:00 to 7:30 PM in the Seaside Church parking lot across from Evergreen Park.
Nick Wofford invited the public to attend the First Friday Art Walk events scheduled this week in
Charleston, Downtown, and in the Manette area.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check Numbers 324823 through 325076; and EFT-7873 through EFT-7905 in the amount of
$2,815,722.86; Reissue of a final pension check in the amount of $109.48; and Retiree Payroll
in the amount $78.531.10 for the pay-period ending May 31,2008 (#AB08-132)
B. Minutes of Meeting - May 21,2008 (#AB08-133)
C. Minutes of Meeting - May 28,2008 (#AB08-134)
D. Re-Appointment of Eric Anderson to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners (#AB08-135)
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Page 2 of 5
E. Approval of Remedial Action Grant Agreement with the Department of Ecology for the former
Chevron property (#AB08-136)
F. Approval of a 10-year Land Lease Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Donna
Hammargren for Sewage Pump Station EB-4 (#AB08-137)
G. Contract Award for Construction of Reservoir Seismic Valve Upgrade to STAN PALMER
CONSTRUCTION (#AB08-138)
H. Resolution No. 3061, authorizing an application to the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office for a Lions Park Grant (#AB08-139)
There were no comments from the public. . .
05:40:15 M/S/C (Runyon/Wofford) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented.
Voted in favor of Motion: Gehring, McConnell, Runyon, Shepherd, Robinson, Arends, Wofford,
Maupin
Abstained: Brockus
Motion carried: 8-Yes; 1-Abstention
GENERAL BUSINESS
6A - REDEVELOPMENT GRANT CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY FOR LIONS PARK (#AB08-140): Parks & Recreation Director Wyn Birkenthal stated
that the grant agreement with the Department of Ecology will provide one million dollars toward the
redevelopment of Lions Park. Under the agreement, the City will use Low Impact Development
Techniques (LID) to construct a new Park restroom, improve parking, use of native plantings to
stop shoreline erosion, create a waterfront trail, and construct a child-friendly play meadow at the
north end of the park. The project has been endorsed by the Bremerton Central Lions Club and
has been reviewed by the Park Board, Council Finance Committee, and the Parks & Public Safety
Committee. The 25% grant match will be provided by the Parks portion of real estate excise tax
and in-kind services including planting, site preparation, project design and project management.
Richard Nerf and Bill North, members of the Parks Commission, provided comments in support
of this request, and also discussed highlights of what this grant would provide for the Park.
John Starton liked the plan, but was concerned that there was a potential for losing too many
needed parking spaces. Mr. Birkenthal explained that by re-striping the current parking lot, and
increasing the parking in the upper area, there was only a net-loss of 4 parking spaces with the
implementation of this plan.
05:54:45 M/S/C/U (Arends/Runyon) Move to authorize the Mayor to enter into the Lions Park
Redevelopment Grant Contract with the Department of Ecology; and to finalize and execute the
agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
6B - AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. GOLF ASSOCIATION FOR THE 2011 JUNIOR AMATEUR
CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT (#AB08-141): Daryl Metheney, Head Golf Pro at Gold
Mountain Golf Course, explained that following the success of the 2006 U.S. Public Links
Championship at Bremerton's Gold Mountain Golf Course, the City's golf professionals with the
support and encouragement of the Gold Mountain Board of Directors and staff pursued bringing
an additional major tournament to Bremerton. The agreement with the U.S. Golf Association
outlines the conditions and terms for the 2011 Junior Amateur Championship. The agreement is
similar to the one executed for the 2006 Public Links event. The event to be held July 18-23,
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, June 4,2008
Page 3 of 5
2011, will raise the profile of Gold Mountain within the national golf community and bring a healthy
economic boost to Bremerton's hotels, restaurants, and retail stores owing to the influx of golfers
and attendees from out of town. Local fund raising will be needed to put on the event and the Golf
Professionals have obtained a great deal of positive interest from the sponsors of the 2006 Public
Links Championship. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and endorsed in
principal by the Gold Mountain Board of Directors at their April 2008 meeting. Mr. Metheney
provided a POWERPOINT@ presentation to provide further highlights and benefits of bringing such a
high profile championship tournament to our area, and added that the event will be televised.
06:08:55 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Brockus) Move to approve the agreement with the U.S. Golf
Association for the 2011 U.S. Junior Amateur Championship Tournament at Gold Mountain; and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially the same form as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7 A - ORDINANCE NO. 5052. CREATING THE BREMERTON HARBORSIDE REVENUE
DEVELOPMENT AREA (#AB08.142): Laura Lyon, Financial Services Director, provided a
POWERPOINT@ presentation to provide further details as she explained that Washington State
enacted legislation creating the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT). The LIFT Legislation
creates an opportunity to redirect existing revenue sources to projects that benefit the local
community by designating a Revenue Development Area (RDA). The City must obtain permission
form the State to use this authority. To secure the State's permission, the City must participate in
a process specified by law and compete against other interested government agencies throughout
the state. The selection of Bremerton would authorize the City (within the approved and
established RDA) to finance certain economic development public infrastructure improvements
through the reallocation of various existing property and excise taxes. Use of LIFT does not
increase property or sales tax rates.
The estimated period in which local infrastructure. financing is contemplated to be used is twenty-
five (25) years. If the City is selected by the State for this program, LIFT would commence as
early as July 1, 2011 and conclude no later than June 30, 2039.
Staff has completed the required notification procedures and ensured all conditions of the
proposed Revenue Development Area meet the eligibility criteria and therefore recommend that
the City Council approve the ordinance creating the Bremerton Harborside Revenue Development
Area.
Mark Saterthwait was not so concerned with the tax rate, but the fact that property taxes will
escalate; and was also concerned with the lack of information that has been provided so far to the
public.
Joe Hudson, owner of Evergreen Trophies was concerned that at least 25% of businesses will be
negatively affected, and would also like additional information.
John Starton would like to have the mitigation plan explained in further detail.
Pat ROQers provided comments in support of this plan, noting that it fits the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and applauds what the City has done so far.
Fred lash read from a list of questions.
Mike Walton speaking as a representative of Kitsap Public Facilities District asked about the
displacement of sales tax.
Terry Boyle applauds this effort and encouraged the Council to vote in support of the LIFT.
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, June 4,2008
Page 4 of 5
Ms. Lvon addressed the issue of increased property values, stating that it was a goal of the City
with or without the LIFT; agreed that only a summary was provided tonight, but that additional
information would be included in the analysis that would be provided as part of the application and
would be made readily available to the public on the City's website. She addressed the issues of
growth assumption; how many low income multi-family units would be available, stated that quite a
bit of growth in the downtown area is part of the City's growth management plan; explained that
the mitigation plan is included in Exhibit E of the ordinance; discussed that the Small Business
Development Center offers assistance to small businesses to help them be successful; and there
is also the multi-tax abatement program that offers tax incentives; and that customized work force
training programs are all available to help mitigate some of the impact that might occur. She also
listed several organizations and programs that assist people with locating low-income housing and
aid if they are displaced.
Ms. Lvon further added that the LIFT funding is not dependent on the Boardwalk Project funding;
the LIFT is not tied to the upgrade of the Manette Bridge; and she is not aware of any other cities
in the County who have applied for this funding, but explained that they are also not required to
disclose that information. For those cities that are competing this year, it may be the last group
unless the Legislature approves additional funding. $2.5 million has been made available per
year, for 25-years, and it 500 new multi-family residential units are expected 2009 through 2039,
but it is unknown how many of them would be low income. Mr. Maupin pointed out that the tax
abatement program provides incentives for multi-family, low-income housing.
Director of Public Works & Utilities Phil Williams addressed in further detail the questions related
to the Boardwalk project; and stated the State has funding set aside for replacing the Manette
Bridge between 2010 and 2012 and it is the hope of the City to have funding available for the
Boardwalk project between 2010 and 2011. Property owners are encouraged to contact the Public
Works Department to discuss any additional concerns.
7:13:13 to 7:33:48
Council Members asked for clarification, expressed concern, and provided comments in support of
the proposed LlFT...
07:33:48 M/S/C/U (Robinson/Arends) Move to approve Ordinance No. 5052 creating a Revenue
Development Area (RDA) to be known as the Bremerton Harborside Revenue Development Area.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Adam Brockus reiterated information about the first public workshop on the Manette Sub Area
Plan; and commented that he had a wonderful time at the grand opening of the Marina.
Rov Runvon echoed the positive comments about the grand opening of the Marina; and
commented on the Parking & Animal Control Committee meeting held last evening and thanked
the citizens who attended to provide comment.
Mike Shepherd further commented on the Parking & Animal Control Committee meeting; as well
as the meeting to discuss the upcoming Evergreen Park Birthday celebration.
Carol Arends reminded citizens to attend the First Friday Artwalk activities; and that it was cold in
here tonight!
Nick Wofford thanked citizens who volunteer their time to serve on committees.
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Page 5 of 5
With no further business, President Maupin adjourned the Council Meeting at 7:38 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
~\itr~
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
WILL MAUPIN, City Council President
WM:CE:ls:cg
DATE SUBMITTED:
BILL #
()8- /45
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 5 It
CITY COUNCIL \...,
.....................................................................0..................
Committee Meeting Date: N/ A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: MoY\d.Q.V.~Jn~ 1(0 2co~
Department: City COullcil (
Presenter: Will Maupin,
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting held ~vV\e... \l .I .=Loo 8
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
for meeting of
~uy\e, l1, 200 S
ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for :f"Vf'\e.. tl,
:;2.008
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
Council President
N/A
N/A
N/A
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
~
~4p-/-
CONSENT AGENDA [t]
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING D
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Conference Room in Room 603 of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at
345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 5:00 PM, with Council
President Will Maupin presiding. Council members present were Nick Wofford, Carol Arends,
Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Roy Runyon, Adam Brockus, Cecil McConnell, and Brad
Gehring. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was also present to provide staff support to the
Council.
President Maupin announced that the Study Session was for the Council to hear presentations
on upcoming agenda items. It was further announced that this Study Session was open to the
public, but there would 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 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. Renewal of Monitoring Well Lease with U.S. Navy at N.A.D. Park - Wyn Birkenthal,
Director of Parks & Recreation; and Brad Gehring, Chair of Public Safety & Parks
Committee Consent
2. Contract Award for Construction of Southwest Bremerton Residential Sewer Extension
Pump Station to PIVETTA BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. - City Engineer Michael
Mecham, Public Works & Utilities; and Cecil McConnell, Chair of Public Works
Committee Consent
3. Contract Award for Construction of Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements to SERPANOK
CONSTRUCTION - City Engineer Michael Mecham, Public Works & Utilities; and Cecil
McConnell, Chair of Public Works Committee General Business
4. Approval of Commuto Trip Reduction PI::m City Enginoor Mich3el Mech3m, pLJl;)lic
VVorks & Utilities; 3nd Cecil McConnell, Chair of Public '-'\,forks Committee Item delayed
until July 9...
B. FULL DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. Proposed resolution authorizing expenditures of funds received from the 2008
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Levy Ballot Measure - Chief AI Duke, Bremerton
Fire Department; and Brad Gehring, Chair of Public Safety & Parks Committee General
Business
6. Proposed resolutions (2) approving annexation proceedings for two territories in the
South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) - Andrea Spencer, Director of Community
Development; and Dianne Robinson, Chair of the Planning Committee General
Business
C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
It was announced that the Admiral Theater Board of Directors invited the Council Members
to attend a reception to meet new members of Board immediately following the Council
Meeting on Wednesday, June 25,2008... Council Members were reminded that the next
City Council Study Session Minutes
VVednesday, June 11, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Council Meeting would be held on Monday, June 16, 2008 due to the AVVC Annual
Conference in Yakima, VVA June 17 to 20,2008; and that information for the Conference
has been distributed.
VVith no further business, President Maupin adjourned the Council Study Session at 8:00 PM.
p~
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
VVILL MAUPIN, City Council President
VVM:CE:ls:cg
DATE SUBMITTED: June 3, 2008
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
BILL #
o~- (4?P
5D
........................................................................................
Committee Meeting Date: June 11 th.2008
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June Ht 2008
Department: Parks
Presenter: Wyn Birkenthal
Phone: 473-5752
SUBJECT: Renewal of monitoring well
lease with u.s. Navy at N.A.D. Park
SUMMARY: Navy lease N4425598RPOOGll provides for the operation and monitoring of2
existing water monitoring wells at NAD Park. One well is situated at the north end of the park, the
second well at the south portion. The Navy wishes to extend the lease for a 5 year period of time to
June 18th 2013. The compensation to the City is $100 per year. The wells do not effect recreational
use ofNAD Park and serve to carefully monitor the condition of groundwater for any potential
degradation. A minor amendment to the existing lease will update the City of Bremerton's business
address to 345 6th Street.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Lease with u.s. Navy
2) Map depicting well locations
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $500 in revenue over the term of the renewed
lease.
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINA~CE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
CONSENT AGENDA D(
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARING 0
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to extend the Navy's monitoring well lease for property in
NAD Park for an additional term of 5 years and authorize the Mayor to execute the lease document
with minor changes as may be required.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
D Continue 0 No Action
......
11. CONTRACT 10 CODE I PAGE OF PAGES
AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 I 2
2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVF DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 15. PROJECT NO. (If ap~lIcabl.)
Six (6) 1 June 2008 797634
6. ISSUED BY CODE RES 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE
Commanding Officer
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
1101 Tautog Circle
Silverdale, WA 98315-1101
8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street. county, State and Zip Code) -1& 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.
City of Bremerton
Financial Services 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
345 6th Street Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337-1873
lOA. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.
N4425598RPOOG11
10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
CODE I FACILITY CODE As of 1 June 1998
11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. Is not extended.
Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:
(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By
separate leller or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and emendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE
PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this
amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or leller, provided each telegram or leller makes reference to the solicitation
and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
12. ACCOUNTING;.ND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)
AL 17 08081804 KU2E 0252 62470 P 068732 20 ROOOP5 AL8RPOOG11 ER $100.00
13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.
IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.
CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER
NO. IN ITEM lOA.
B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office,
appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR.l03(b).
C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:
.;
D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)
E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, I is required to sign this document and return 4 copies to the issuing office~
14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, Including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
Modification Six (6) is issued to make two changes:
1. Change the notification address for the City of Bremerton
2. Amend Paragraph 5 of the Lease to extend the term an additional five years
Both as shown on the attached continuation sheet
Exceot as orovided herein, all tenns and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore chanoed, remains unchanoed and in full force and effect.
15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNERITvoe or orinl 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER fTvDe or print)
MICHAEL D. BRADY
REAL ESTATE CONTRACTING OFFICER
158. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 168. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED
(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)
NSN 7540.01.152.8070
Previous edition unusable
STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)
PreSCribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243
,..""
INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as rollows:
(a) Item 1 (Contract 10 Code). Insert the contract type
identification code that appears in the title block of
the contract being modified.
(b) Item 3 (Effective date).
(1) For a solicitation amendment, change order, or
administrative change, the effective date shall be
the issue date of the amendment, change order,
or administrative change.
(2) For a supplemental agreement, the effective
date shall be the date agreed to by the
contracting parties.
(3) For a modification issued as an initial or
confirming notice of termination for the
convenience of the Government, the effective
date and the modification number of the
confirming notice shall be the same as the
effective date and modification number of the
initial notice.
(4) For a modification converting a termination for
default to a termination for the
convenience of the Government, the
effective date shall be the same as the
effective date of the termination for default.
(5) For a modification confirming the contacting
officer's determination of the amount due in
settlement of a contract termination, the
effective date shall be the same as the
effective date of the initial decision.
(c) Item 6 (Issued Bv). Insert the name and address
of the issuing office. If applicable, insert the
appropriate issuing office code in the code block.
(d) Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor). For
modifications to a contract or order, enter the
contractor's name, address, and code as shown in
the original contract or order, unless changed by
this or a previous modification.
(e) Item 9. (Amendment of Solicitation No; - Dated),
and 10. (Modification of Contract/Order No. -
Dated). Check the appropriate box and in the
corresponding blanks insert the number and date
of the original solicitation, contract, or order.
(f) Item 12 (Accountinq and Appropriation Data). When
appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification
on each affected accounting classification by
inserting one of the following entries.
(1) Accounting classification
Net increase $
(2) Accounting classification
Net decrease $
NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting
classifications that cannot be placed in block 12, insert
an asterisk and the words "See continuation sheet".
(g) Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the
type of modification. Insert in the corresponding
blank the authority under which the modification is
issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign
this document. (See FAR 43.103.)
(h) Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification) .
(1) Organize amendments or modifications undel
the appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF:
section headings from the applicable solicitatior
or contract. The UCF table of contents,
however, shall not be set forth in this document
(2) Indicate the impact of the modification on the
overall total contract price by inserting one 01
the following entries:
(i) Total contract price increased by $
(ii) Total contract price decreased by $
(iii) Total contract price unchanged.
(3) State reason for modification.
(4) When removing, reinstating, or adding funds,
identify the contract items and accounting
classifications.
(5) When the SF 30 is used to reflect a
determination by the contracting officer of the
amount due in settlement of a contrac1
terminated for the convenience of the
Government, the entry in Item 14 of the
modification may be limited to --
(i) A reference to the letter determination; and
(ii) A statement of the net amount determined
to be due in settlemert of the contract.
(6) Include subject matter or short title 01
solicitation/contract where feasible.
(i) Item 168. The contracting officer's signature is not
required on solicitation amendments. The
contracting officer's signature is normally affixed last
on supplemental agreements. .
STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83) BACK
.. ~
Continuation Sheet
Modification 6 to
Lease N4425598RPOOG 11
Page 2 of2
Change l. Change City of Bremerton address:
From:
City of Bremerton
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337-1812
To:
City of Bremerton
Financial Services
345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, W A 98337-1873
Change 2. Extend the term of the lease as follows:
This lease may be renewed, at the option of the Government, for the following terms at the following
rentals.
Period Covered Payment Due Amount
1 Jun 08- 31 May 09 1 June 09 $100.00
1 Jun 09-31 May 10 1 June 10 $100.00
I Jun 10-31 May 11 1 June 11 $100.00
1 Jun 11-31 May 12 1 June 12 $100.00
1 Jun 12-31 May 13 1 June 13 $100.00
Provided notice be given in writing to the lessor at least 30 days before the end of the original term or any
renewal term: all other terms and conditions of this lease shall remain the same during any renewal term.
Said notice shall be computed commencing with the date of mailing.
This lease is hereby renewed for the period 1 June 2008 through 21 May 2009
Doc: 98G-ll continuation
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF GOVERNMENT LEASE
1.
FROM:
Commanding Officer (Code RES)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
1101 Tautog Circle
Silverda1e, W A 98315-1101
TO:
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, W A 98310
DUNS 556846970, CAGE Code 04DN7
2.
CONTRACT NO.
N4425598RPOOG II
3.
4.
You are hereby notified that under the provisions of the Government lease described below, the United States
of America elects to renew the said lease as the same may have been amended, and does hereby renew,
extend, and adopt the said lease and all the terms, conditions, and general provisions thereof for the period
beginning I June 2001 and ending 31 May 2008.
5. REQUIRING ACTIVITY:
Commanding Officer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, 110 I Tautog Circle, Silverdale, W A 98315-1101
6. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE:
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOG II provides for the installation, operation, and maintenance of two
monitoring wells, one each on two plots of land, one on the north end and one on the south end of Naval
Ammunition DepotM~ne Park, Bremerton,. Washington... . ....--. .... "'" ~-"--"'-'__"__"_,",______' ....__...._..
~: " :::'~ I 1" ;,_ ; n. ~I: ; ~ ,,:: j ~ f;;~. \jy,:O"..fj
I I"': 1 0"'''":.';.. r'",,:. .~(n' :'.. ;~{h~L.t!)l~:: 1 ;....{ , !..: ~;~J'PC
: l" I
..... .~. ---'-.' ..., -,' ...,-...-...
~. ": ' \ (?:..:
. .,-..... ...-..... ....--. ....~.
'.,'" .... ~ , . .
Copy to:
!. ..-. .-.... -.. -..
_.!....;.~~ ..- . _. " -_."-"~"'''. ...--
NA VF AC NW Muniments (Original)
NA VF AC NW Lease File
. .' ., ':;. ,.:;:!...
DFAS Cleveland (via CIMAGE)
NA VFAC SW Code 05B~ .
NA VFAC NWCode 05ER.SB
NA VFAC NW Code 05ER.DT
MICHAEL D. BRADY
Director, Real Estate
Real Estate C:ontracting Officer
~~;"
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Acting under direction of the
Secretary of the Navv
DATE
7. NAME, POSITION, AND TITLE
MAY 2 120m
8. NAVY ACCOUNTING DATA:
PAYMENT TO BE MADE BY:
DFAS Cleveland.. Norfolk Accounts Payable,})O Box 998022,Cleveland, OH 44199
AMOUNT
$100.00
,i':
I" .,)
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION TO BE CHARGED IDlSBURSEMENTl
. A: .. B.APPROPRlA.' .. C.SUB... ....D.OBJ... E.BU-. F.. ._ G........... .H.. .......L...... ..L_...._J:.........._..
ACRN llON HEAD CLASS CONTROL SA AM IT PAA COST CODE
K.
. -- "-AMOUNT'" BOO ".
; AK
17071804
KU2E
0252
62470 P 068732 2D AKOOP5 AK8RPOOGllER
$100.00
Per Annum
(I ,F. '),'
',1.:1:,;:: ", ':
:'1, -:'~l ~,::,.~i;'~'...;"..f)...J.;,>} >""...~~:""'::~;I'.tJj.:.t,.~.:
;:" ': r . . .,; ~ .;;; ~ .
OUPUCf\1E OR\G\N~l
.' ..~ ~ ,- .'-' ....'
Vendor
Subject
Department
Status Code
Amount
Begin Date
End Date
Review Date
Insurance
Comments
Contract Number 3927
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND NW
NAD Marine Park
Parks
LAN
$100.00
06/01/98
05/31/2007
05/01/2007
GL $
AL $
E&O
Insurance Total $
Insurance Review Date
(US NAVY)
N44225598RPOOG11
May be renewed in 1 yr terms thru 5/31/08
AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 11. CONTRACT 10 CODE I PAGE OF PAGES
1 I 1
2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 15. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)
Five (5) 6/01/2006
6. ISSUED BY CODE 05LR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE I
Commanding Officer
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
1101 Tautog Circle
Silverdale, WA 98315-1101
8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and Zip Code) ~ 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
Bremerton, WA 98310
DUNS 556846970, CAGE Code 04DN7
lOA. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.
N4425598RPOOG11
t/ lOB. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
CODE I FACILITY CODE as of 1 June 1998
11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.
Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified In the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:
(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted: or (c) By
separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE
PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this
amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or leller, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation
and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)
CHECK ONE
13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.
IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.
A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER
NO. IN ITEM lOA.
t/
B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes In paying office,
appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR.l03(b).
C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:
D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)
E. IMPORTANT: Contractor \lis not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.
14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
Modification Five (5) is issued to change the name and address of the using activity and paying office.
Name And Address of Using Activity Paying Office:
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest Defense Finance and Accounting Service, NorfOlk (Code FPV)
1101 Tautog Circle 1837 Morris Street, Suite 1401
Silverdale WA 98315-1101 PO Box 429100
, Norfolk, VA 23511-3431
This lease is hereby renewed for the period 1 June 2006 through 31 May 2007.
AJ 1706061804 KU2E 0252 62470 P 0687352 2D AJOOP5 AJ8RPOOG11 ER $100.00
Exce t as rovided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or lOA, as heretofore chan ed, remains unchan ad and in full force and effect.
15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER T e or rint 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER T e or rint
15B. CONTRACTORJOFFEROR
15C. DATE SIGNED
16C. DATE SIGNED
(Signature of person authorized to sign)
MAY 1 9 2006
NSN 7540-01-152-6070
Previous edition unusable
STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-63)
Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243
DUPLICATE ORIG\NAL
. .~' , , ,~, .
..'~. '. .'
"''; ',. :,'t..." I', ..... ".':. . , t. ,.... ~. ': ~
. .....,~.~.,... ..!....",.,.;,.~....~~. !...~.....\...,.....'i' . ....7 ,.".......:...{.
. .INSTRUCTIONS...
'. .... '..~ .".' .~" "t,::. .', ",.., ~ .:.' ,
....'.. .:.::'. '~.,h~;.
.::.'~.i.; ',f InstructioNS for iteITls :other than those thi:1tare self~'~xpi~hat6ry~: arias follows::
(a) Iteni1 (Contract 10 Code). Insert the confr~dtyp~ '.: ':~:'~\;<::'- '<?)Accounting,.9!aSs!fi,s~~iQn
identification code that appears in the title block of' ,'i'/i'., ;i, ;:t;J.et decrease $
," t~e ~~~t~act be,~~9. '!1?difi~d, ,::'.,NOTE:. ;.If.the'reare.:ch~nges.~to>multip!eaccounting
: :._':,' ,,;'.. ""':' q:,,; ..,," ',' , . .' " ,'t': C1assifications'that cailiiOfbEf'pla8e'ct'iii" block 12, insert
(b),}tem ~ ,'(~~~?tiv,~,9~~e),.~..,: i:'" '.. ..,,',:, ';y,- an~steris~, al1(;Lth~words:::$ee continuation sheet",
~ (1 )"F.or a,.~~J!c:it~,t!9,n.~m~I1,9.~e.r:1t,! .~hange order, or (g) Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the
': ,.' .~d~i~istra!iVl:l ~Mr;lg.~, m~.'~fftc!!ye"d,~,t~,,~h.all.b,~. '",j J';"::" ;type pf ,.:I1)Q.clJf!GptiQ.f!.'" Im5en .in tD,e .corr~spo~di~g
th~ J~~~~ dat~,qfJh.~,~fl1e!ldm~,~t,'..Qoh~t:lge pr<:f~,r,. ;: :.. ....~I.cm,~. ~h~ ,a~.~h<?nty.:und~L'<<~.Ich the modlficatlo~ IS
; .Clr~p.m.mlstr~t1ve.,:~,ha[Jge,"::''':~:G i' /,::~t'\> !.'~" (; ",' ..> if ) \;'.; i.:;.I~~!l/,!,d:, y C;;hEJP~;~h~~~e,f, or:rl.ot,cqDt~~gtor must sign
;"(2)iFo't a ~u'ppiern~Ata'('~~i~~';';"~nt: 'th;€t~ffJ~ti~e' 'c..,,," : ;' ,th!::;}j9curn~9.tl<(~,~:~ll}~.,4>9) 03).,
date Shall be the date agreed to by the (h) Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification) ,
:' contracting parties;>: 1:.;,:.1<.::'.'," .' :" ' '. . " . ,", ',' .,-..... ./"':" '." ." ""'>, ::": ,,:,.!,.: 'T.':"'" '.::',;c:.. ." ".
L,.:' '..:......,',.: ....~,,::.;','. :" 'Ii:':' '. ,,' ,:,,\'!i..:,~;( '::.:;,~.>,,;,: (1)brg~rllte' amehdmelilts"::(W"mddific~dions under
.,,(,,) Fora modification Issued .as ,an..lmbal".or th'" ". tU 'f' "'C ..t., 't.F.....' .,.t'(UCF)
confirming notice of termination for the e ~ppropn~ e nI orm on r~c erma.. .
convenience 'of the', Government 'lheeffective section headmgs from the. applicable soliCitation
d~:lte' anchthe modification";number.>of..'the'~'; .. ::;"::".. or. ,contract... The' UCFlable'bf 'contents,
"', confirming' notice ;:shall ::be,'rthe ,'same:.;as',the(;:r;i,,'I~', ,.,;,h~wever, shall not be set forth in this document
effectivedcite'.and'modification nurnber'offhe" ..,. . ,... .....d'. '.. ....-.. ..
initial notfC'e'::L"""~:';;;":'>": .~~;!;,,~;:::~';,>;!..:~.,)';',,"':;~' :.";:~'L:"':.".; l" , · .:.:(2t1~~1il}et~&i"~6:~~~~t9.~'f~~~;:hy?~~~~~:~~' ~'~et~~
(4) For.a modification converting a termination for the following entries:
default 1..t9.i .'. a termina,tiol) for the ..
d..,:,.::. '. c.onvenienc~L .Qt"th~L:..:'::~ciY~mm.elJt,'i!_5:<t~~:~.;.. ::/ ..h :. ./ (i) Totalcoiitract:pricelncrease(fbyr'$';\~'\'~'.~;
,.',......,,,,,.,:.".,, ,,;.ff;,~!(~;~~~t~~fi!~:'~~;~~:o~R~h;f~r~~i~t1!:<~!Z~):;'?~G~\:,:~E:;>.i;'\;~;~:;:':"'~:(ii;:~~t~;I;ci~~i'k.~t:;iii'g~. decreased' b'Y"$""" ."",.',.,"'"
,..(5), ,-FQr:..,.a..rnodification :.confirming.",the contacting tjll
'., dofficer~s'dete'rminatioi'-"oftneariiount due" 'in" . (iii)Total c6Jitract priceunchari'ged:" .,. ....
;.. ;'~"o'~' ::.:~$ett!~,m~'!"t 'Af'::'a:',,_:C9fitra~eJ~r.mi.r;1~tlo)).<~f!1e., ;', ,; ". ',1\.:',. .',', '. '.. "'.: ", . :.,".".:."" ! .-'l' . "":"W; ><;i""""'-" :.' .\:;0.". ",,',
..',,'.,,';, effective, date,,'shall :'i.be., 1.the.,,-,same',iclsn!the,; :..'" ,...... (3) State reaS6rffor n19djficatl~n>, ;, ,i'; . ":i" ~...::r
:.+i:". "effectivEfdate:ofthe initial decision'::'i."..." '"',J',;,:'':''''' . ,,,, . .,.., ... "''';;<..,;1-.'''' " >"..."..1)'....,"'.' ~,::.
...._'.~~J. '1:".1... .',1' ~', '~.:.~.'. :.,..,'..~":.:.. :.~..'...; '. ~..:;,:C.,\l,...'<': I" ",.,:.., ....,....'\. :'.' ,..:'~.r:~., t.. .!'.,...~\'..,.,.,. .'t"'ll-'
(dj;ttE;m6'.(jssJ'~d':~;B\h."~~~rt:th~ 'ri'~~~':;a'~'d'i:~ddress':;:"', :",: :"";. (4) '.Wh~n 'Jet~oVhj9, /Eji~'st~tJlIl9, ,9~..,addding fUnt~S,
_, of the. issuing office.. ., If applica.b!~"ins~(1Jh,~. .,,'. identi.fy. . e. ,~~:>nJac ,'"e!ll;3. an accoun Ing
"";.;",,,,t;!PPmprJ~t.e..i~slJjng ,offlce;co(;feJrlJb~';c6.qe,'J;)loCl(.:;..;i,L;,. ,.';:.": ,., :. '..,~*:t~,~IT!9~11.C?~,~t:'.:;:;.;", "~'''' "."" ,,,. "<'.."..",,,, .,.... ,", ,,"........; ,',.;
r:;';;..-!..: ; IY:", '. ",.'.:"i~}~ ! -. . ""1 ~. ~~"l" ......
'(d) item f3(Nameimd Address c)f'Coritractor). For (5) Wh,en the SF "'3'0' "is':;'>i.Jsed to reflect a
modifications to a contract or order, enter the determJnati.on by ,~h,~.. c:olltr~c.ting officer of the
contractor's name, address, and code as shown in amount :due':iil..,"settlenient '"oL'a''' contract
- J ." "l....\.', -.... ~ ,.,.;:. '; t r. i~'..'''' J.'.~ t i -;
the original contract or order, unless changed by terminated . for: '1'.the,',I6'6nve.tlien'ce of the
this or a previous modification. Gov~rnrrient, tt,le'. ,~r;ltry.. in)t~IT,l ..14. .9f the
modification may be limited tc)":'::'/Y" . '. .,~... .'
(i) A reference to the letter determination; and
(e) 'Item 9. (Amendment of Solicitation No. - Dated),
, and, 10, ((Modification of ContracUOrder No. -
;',' Dated): Check th~ . appropriate box and in the
..', corresponding blanks insert the number and date
. of the original solicitation, contract, or order.
~,: ~\'~'.;:,'!.;. "":'.,. ..' ..i': '.'r. .:, . .' :,':" "iL(~.:~::.~"IV, ~~~~~~i~' iI'd.:}. .:..,;'....
.,,''::; :.. :}:~' :.:.: ., ...,....
~;'(.. y' ~
'..;. ,
" .
, . . . .
~, . ~~. ~ . .'
(ii) A statement of the net amount determined
to be due in s~ttl~mel)t ()f th.e..contract.
, . . .... '. . -h,~{t\.,~~;;.'. "'~.,~;..\i ~'. .,:':i.;:./:':,'''~. .....
(6) Include subject matter or short title of
solicitation/contract where feasible.
(i) Item 168. The contracting officer's signature is not
required on solicitation amendments. The
: contracting officer's .signature i.s normally affixed'last
on supplemental agreerri~nts, . .. . "- ....
. STANDARD FORM ;30 (REV.1D-S3) BACK
:;:~ .'..r.;:::: \ ""';':'j';' ~ ~::~':..'4';"": .l~'< ,"\:: ::','!,-'
:." (1) Accoun.ting .c1assification
Net increase . $
:..'( ;-; I\:'::;';;'~{
~: .: .
J ~, ;)...,,' _ . ..,.... ,.-:.' '.'. ~~'.:', .'. ""t,.', .'. .:.'
;'... ... ',.'. ., ....:'.; '...:' -. 'j t', :~. t. ~. ...- ..~:J..':"""."_ . "f';". "'j ';.'....: . ','i" - . ',' .I't'
...
'. .'. ',. . '.' ;:"'\ '..... , .. ':"'-",~''','-. "....: '..: . '''.' " -.'~''- .".... ... '.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
=rEnter Search Criteria, Press Esc Key to Transmit ,.
=rPress Del Key to Terminate Delete Mode i
CHANGE Contract Transactions
Contract Number 3927
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY NW (US NAVY)
,.Subject NAD MARINE PARK
,.Department PARKS
tStatus Code LAN +
Amount $100.00
Begin Date 06/01/1998
t Insurance End Date 05/31/2006 t
l Type Amount Review Date 05/01/2006 t
I Insurance Total $0.00 +
+ Comments ~;2;~5;:~~~~~'~N 1 YR :::::a:::uR:::::o:ate i
,. ,.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF GOVERNMENT LEASE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. FROM: 2. CONTRACT NO.
Commanding Officer (Code 05LR)
Engineering Field Activity. Northwest N4425598RPOOG 11
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo. WA 98370-7570
3. TO:
City of Brernerton
2394th Street
Brernerton. WA 98331-1812
4.
You are hereby notified that under the provisions of the Government lease described below. the United
States of America elects to renew the said lease as the same may have been amended, and does hereby
renew, extend, and adopt the said lease and all the terms, conditions, and general provisions thereof for the
period beginning 1 June 2005 and ending 31 May 2006.
5. REQUIRING ACTIVITY:
Commanding Officer. Engineering Field Activity. Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. ]9917 7th Avenue NE. Poulsbo.
WA 98370-7570
6. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE:
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOG 11 provides for the installation, operation, and maintenance of two
monitoring wells, one each on two plots of land, one on the north end and one on the south end of Naval
Ammunition Depot Marine Park, Bremerton, Washington
Copy to:
ENGfLDACf NW Muniments (Original) DFAS San Diego (AIBAB-EFD) ENGFLDACf NW (05ER.CO)
ENGfLDACf NW Lease File SWOW (Code 05BP) ENGFlDACT NW (0330Mf)
SOUTHWESTDIV (Code FM22C)
7. NAME, POSITION, AND TIlLE SIGNAl1lRE ~ DATE
MICHAEL D. BRADY B~!Command , APR 2 1 2005
Director, Real Estate
Real Estate Contracting Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Acting under direction of the
Secretary of the Navy
8. NAVY ACCOUNTING DATA:
PAYMENT TO BE MADE BY: AMOUNT
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Oakland via DFAS (Code AIBAB-EFD), P.O. $100.00
Box 429100, San Diego, CA 92142
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICA nON TO BE CHARGED IDISBURSEMEN1
A B. APPROPRIA- C. SUB- D.OBJ. I!.BU- F. G. H J. J. K.
ACRN nON HI!AD CLASS CONTROL SA AAA IT PM COST CODE AMOUNT
AH 1105051804 KU2E 0252 68711 P 068732 2D AHOOP5 AH8RPOOG llER $100.00
Per Annum
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Enter Search Criteria, Press Ese Key to Transmit +
Press Del Key to Terminate Delete Mode +
CHANGE Contract Transactions +
Contract Number 3927 +
t
Vendor Name
Subject
Department
Status Code
t
i
Comments
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY NW
NAD MARINE PARK
PARKS
LAN
(US NAVY)
$100.00
06/01/1998
05/31/2005
04/01/2005
Insurance
Type Amount
Amount
Begin Date
End Date
Review Date
$0.00 i
I
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Insurance Total
Insurance Review Date
N44225598RPOOG11
MAY BE RENEWED IN 1 YR TERMS THRU 5/31/08
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF GOVERNMENT LEASE
1. FROM: 2. CONTRACT NO.
Commanding Officer (Code 05LR) N4425598RPOOG 11
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo, W A' 98370-7570
3. TO:
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, W A 98337 -1812
4. You are hereby notified that under the provisions of the Government lease described below, the United States of
America elects to renew the said lease as the same may have been amended, and does hereby renew, extend, and
adopt the said lease and all the terms, conditions. and general provisions thereof for the period beginning I June 2004
and ending 31 May 2005.
5. REQUIRING ACTIVITY: Commanding Officer, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, 19917 7th A venue NE, Poulsbo, W A 98370-7570.
6. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE:
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOG II provides for the installation, operation, and maintenance of two monitoring
wells, one each on two plots of land, one on the north end and one on the south end of Naval Ammunition Depot
Marine Park, Bremerton, Washington.
Copy to:
ENGFLDACT NW (Muniments) DFAS San Diego (AIBAB-EFD) ENGFLDACT NW (05ER.CO)
ENGFLDACT NW (Lease File) SOUTHWESTDIV (05BP) ENGFLDACT NW (0330MT)
ENGFLDACT NW (Contract Admin File) SOUTHWESTDIV (0 I CAJR)
7. NAME, POSITION, AND TITLE SIGNATURE .U DATE
~~~~J.~a
MICHAEL D. BRADY
Director, Real Estate By direction of the Commander,
Real Estate Contracting Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command APR 16 2004
Acting under direction of the
Secretary of the Navy
8. NAVY ACCOUNTING DATA:
PA YMENT TO BE MADE BY: AMOUNT
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Oakland via DFAS (Code AIBAB-EFD), P.O. $100.00
Box 429100, San Diell;o, CA 92142.
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFlCA nON TO BE CHARGED (DISBURSEMENT)
A. B. APPROPRJA- C. SUB. D.OBJ. E. BU. F. G. H. I. 1. K.
ACRN TION HEAD CLASS CONTROL SA AAA IT PAA COST CODE AMOUNT
AG 1704041804 KU2E 0252 68711 P 068732 2D AGOOP5 AG8RPOOG II ER $100.00
Per Annum
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
- ' '-.'
11. CONTRACT 10 CODE I PAGE OF PAGES
AME:'NDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 12
2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITlONIPURCHASE REQ. NO. I ~ PROJECT NO. (If applicable)
Four (4) l' June 2003
6. ISSUED BY CODE 05LR 7. ADMINISTERED BY Of other than Item 6) CODE T
Commanding Officer
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570
8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., street, county, State and Zip Code) ~ 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.
City of Bremerton r
C/O Parks and Recreation Department 98. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
680 Lebo Boulevard
Bremerton, WA 98310
lOA. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.
N4425598RPOOG 11
R! 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)
As of 1 June 1998
COOE I FACILITY CODE
1 t. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
o The above numbered solicitation is emended es set forth in Item 14. The hour and dale spacllled for receipt of Offers 0 Is extended, 0 1& not extended.
OffeJ'6 must acknowledge receipt of this emendment prior to the hour and dele spedlled in the aollcitetJon or e8 amended, by one of the following methods:
(a) By completing items 6 and 15, and returning _ _ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on e8dl copy of the offer submitted: Of (c) By
separate letter or telegram which Includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbel'l. FAilURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE
PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR ANO DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESUlT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this
amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation
IInd this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and dele spacifled.
12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)
AF 17 03031804 KU2E 0252 68711 P 068732 20 AFOOP5 AF8RPOOG11ER $100.00
13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.
IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.
CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN rrEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER
NO. IN rrEM lOA.
o
B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes In paying ofnc&,
appropriation date. etc. ) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR.103(b}.
C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:
D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)
E. IMPORTANT: Contractor 0 is not, I8l is required to sign this document and return 4 copies to the issuing office.
14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
AMENDS PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE LEASE TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
SEE ATTACHED CONTINUATION SHEET
15C. DATE SIGNED
l6C. DATE SIGNED
.s.~.!I"o.s
As of 31 May 03
NSN 7540-01-152-8070
Previous edition unusable
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. l0-83)
Prescribed by GSA FAR (46 CFR) 53.243
Page 2 of2
Modification 4
N4425598RPOOG II
Payment Schedule
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOGIl
With City of Bremerton
This lease may be renewed, at the option of the Government, for the following terms at the following
rentals
Period Covered Due Amount
I Iun 03-31 May 04 I Iun 04 $ 100.00
1 Iun 04-31 May 05 1 Iun 05 $ 100.00
I 100 05-31 May 06 I Iun 06 $ 100.00
1 100 06-31 May 07 1 Iun 07 $ 100.00
I Iun 07-31 May 08 1 Iun 08 $ 100.00
Provided notice be given in writing to the Lessor at least 30 days before the end of the original term or any
renewal tenn; all other terms and conditions of this lease shall remain the same during any renewal tenn.
Said notice shall be computed commencing with the date of mailing.
This lease is hereby renewed for the period I Iune 2003 through 31 May 2004
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+Browse; Next Previous First Last Update Delete Restart X - Exit +
+Retrieve the Next record +
+Found: 5 Record(s) MAINTAIN Contract Transactions +
+ Contract Number 3927 +
+ +
+Vendor Name ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY NW (US NAVY) +
+Subject NAD MARINE PARK +
+Department PARKS +
+Status Code LAN +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Insurance
Type Amount
Amount
Begin Date
End Date
Review Date
$100.00 +
06/01/1998 +
05/31/2003 +
04/01/2003 +
+
+
Insurance Total
Insurance Review Date
+
$0.00 +
+
+
+
+
+
Comments
N4422559BRPOOG11
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF GOVERNMENT LEASE
~~
~~.
~,..~
1. FROM: 2. CONTRACT NO.
Commanding Officer (Code 05LR) N4425598RPOOG 11
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570
3. TO:
City of Bremerton
c/o Parks and Recreation Department
680 Lebo Boulevard
Bremerton, WA 98310-3308
4. You are hereby notified that under the provisions of the Government lease described below, the United States of
America elects to renew the said lease as the same may have been amended, and does hereby renew, extend, and
adopt the said lease and all the terms, conditions, and general provisions thereof for the period beginning 1 June 2002
and ending 31 May 2003.
5. REQUIRING ACTIVITY: Commanding Officer, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, 19917 7th A venue NE, Poulsbo, W A 98370-7570.
6. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE:
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOG t t provides for the installation, operation, and maintenance of two monitoring
wells, one each on two plots ofland, one on the north end and one on the south end of Naval Ammunition Depot
Marine Park, Bremerton, Washington.
Copy to:
ENGFLDACT NW (Muniments) DFAS Oakland ENGFLDACT NW (05ER.KH)
ENGFLDACT NW (Lease File) DF AS San Diego (AIBAB-EFD) ENGFLDACT NW (0330MT)
ENGFLDACT NW (Contract Admin File) SOUTHWESTDIV (05BP) SOUTHWESTDIV (OICA.JR)
7. NAME, POSITION, AND TITLE SIGNATURE ~ DATE
MICHAEL D. BRADY U')1, "ft..,* 0
Director, Real Estate By direction of the Commander, WR 2 9 2002
Real Estate Contracting Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Acting under direction of the
Secretarv of the Navy
8. NAVY ACCOUNTING DATA:
PA YMENT TO BE MADE BY: AMOUNT
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Oakland via DFAS (Code AIBAB-EFD), P.O. $100.00
Box 429100, San Diego, CA 92142.
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION TO BE CHARGED (DISBURSEMENT)
A. B. APPROPRIA- C. SUB- D.OBJ. E.BU- F. G. H. 1. J. K.
ACRN TION HEAD CLASS CONTROL SA AAA TT PAA COST CODE AMOUNT
AI:' I 702021804 KU2E 0252 6871 J P 068732 2D AEOOP5 AE8RPOOGIIER $100.00
Per Annwn
DUPLICATE ORiGINAL
AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
!. CONTRACT ID COOE
2. AMENDMENT /....OOIFICA TION NO.
Three (3)
6. ISSUED BY
3. EFFECTIVE DA TE
1 Dee 00
CODE 05LR
4. REOUISITlON/PURCHASE REO. NO.
7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other Ihan Ilem 6)
Commanding Officer
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering command
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570
8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR
IIA. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT A TlON NO.
'ode)
T
DER
City of Bremerton
c/o Parks and Recreation Department
680 Lebo Boulevard
Bremerton, WA 98310-3308
NO.
X N4425S98RPOOGll
109.0'" TED t EE )
CODE FACILITY CODE As of 1 Jun 98
11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
o The above ~umbered eollcitatlon Ie amended a. let forth in Item 14. The hour and dale lpeclfied for receipt of Offe,. D il extended, 0 II not ex.
tended.
Oftllrl mUll acknowledge receipt 0' !hie amendment prior to the hOUI and date epecifled In the eollcitation or ae amended, by one of the following melhods:
(a) By complellnlt Iteme 8 and 1 S. and returning _ coplel of the amendment; (bl By acknowledging receipt of thla amelldment on each copy 01 the ofter
submitted; Of (c) By .eparate letter or telegram which includel a reference to the .01lcitaUon and amendment numbe,.. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGE.
MENT TO BE RECBVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT
IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. "by virtue 0' thle amendment you dellre to change an offer already eubmilled, euch change may be made by telegram or
letler, provided .ach teleg~am or lelter makel ret.rence to lhe lollcllatlon and !hIe amendment, and Ie received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
12. ACCOUNTfNG AND APPROPRI... TlON DA T... fJI requtrttl)
13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT~/ORDERS.
IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITl:M 14.
(~ A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Sp<</fy auzhorlry) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CON.
---'-'- TRACT ORDER NO. IN 1TEt.A lOA. .
X B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER 18 MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADM'NISTRATIVE CHANGES (Jum as mOll,eJ //1 Pay/Ill office,
apP1'OpriDtWn dtlte, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14. PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).
C. THIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITV OF:
D. OTHER (SP<<ifI rype of modjfiCGtioll and aullrDrlry)
E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [!] Is not. D Is required to sign this document and return. copies to the Issuing office.
14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT /WODIFICA flON (Or,an/uti by UCF seaioll htodilllJ, lru:llldtlll sollclraliOlllcolllf'lta sllbject marrer where feasible.)
Modification Three (3) is issued to include DUNS Number 556846970 and
CAGB Code 04DN7 and to change the address of the Payee as follows:
From:
City of Bremerton
c/o Parks and Recreation Department
680 Lebo Boulevard
Bremerton, WA 98310-3308
To:
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Except .. provided "-rein, .11 terms and concltlons 0' In. documenl relerencec:l in Ilem 9,1, or lOA. at heretofore changed. rllmains unchanged .ndin full 'Ol'Cll
and e"eel.
15,1,. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (l'ype or prilll) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (l'ype or prilll)
MICHAEL D. BRADY
Real Estate Contr~cting Officer
159. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. OA TE SIGNED 168. UNIT 0 $T AT OF AMERIC 16C. 0'" TE SIGNED
BY
[(' 0 5 2000
STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)
Preaci'fbed by GSA
FAR (48 CFR) 53.243
(Si,nature of pemln aulhoriud ro sl,lI)
NSN 7140-01-152-'070
PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE
30-105-02
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as follows:
(a) Item 1 (Contract 10 Code). Insert the contract type
identification code that appears in the title block of
the contract being modified.
(b) Item 3 (Effective date).
(1) For a solicitation amendment, change order, or
administrative change, the effective date shall be
the issue date of the amendment, change order, or
administrative change.
(2) For a supplemental agreement, the effective date
shall be the date agreed to by the contracting
parties.
(3) For a modification issued as an initial or confirm-
ing notice of termination for the convenience of
the Government, the effective date and the modi-
fication number of the confirming notice shall be
the same as the effective date and modification
number of the initial notice.
(4) For a modification converting a termination for
default to a termination for the convenience of
the Government, the effective date shall be the
same as the effective date of the termination for
default.
(5) For a modification confirming the contracting
officer's determination of the amount due in
settlement of a oontract termination, the effec-
tive date shall be the same as the effective date
of the initial decision.
(c) Item 6 (Issued By). Insert the name and address of
the issuing office. If applicable, insert the appropriate
issuing office code in the code block.
(d) Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor). For modi-
fications to a contract or order, enter the contractor's
name, address, and code as shown in the original con-
tract or order, unless ohanged by this or a previous
modification.
(e) Items 9, (Amendment of Solicitation No. -- Dated),
and 10. (Modification of Contract/Order No.--
Dated). Check the appropriate box and in the corres-
ponding blanks insert the number and date of the
original solicitation, contract, or order.
(f) Item 12 (Accounting and Appropriation Data). When
appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification
on each affected accounting classification by inserting
one of the following entries:
( 1) Accounting clas~ification
Net increase
$... ..................... .....
(2) Accounting classification
Net decrease
$ ............................
NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting
classifications that cannot be placed in block 12.
insert an asterisk and the words "See continuation
sheet".
(g) Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the
type of modification. Insert in the corresponding
blank the authority under which the modification is
issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign
this document. (See FAR 43.103.)
(h) Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification).
(1) Organize amendments or modifications under the
appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF) ,
section headings from the applicable solicitation
or contract. The UCF table of contents, however,
shall not be set forth In this document.
(2) Indicate the impact of the modification on the
overall total contract price by inserting one of the
following entries:
(i) Total contract price increased by' $
(ii) Total contract price decreased by $
(ill) Total contract price unohanged.
(3) State reason for modification.
(4) When removing, reinstating, or adding funds,
identify the contract Items and accounting classi-
fications.
(5) When the SF30 is used to reflect a determination
by the contracting officer of the amount due in
settlement of a contract terminated for the con-
venience of the Government, the entry in Item 14
of the modification may be limited to --
(i) A reference to the letter determination; and
(ii) A statement of the net amount determined
to be due in settlement of the contract.
(6) Include subject matter or short. title of solicita-
tion/contract where feasible.
(I) Item 16B. The contracting offioer's signature is not
required on solioitation amendments. The contracting
officer's signature is normally affixed last on supple-
mental agreements.
STANDARD FORM 30 BACK (Rell. 10-83)
19M - 242-450/90156
.AMENbMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
1. CONTRACT 10 CODE
2. AMENDMENT IMODIFICA TlON NO.
One (1)
6. ISSUED BY
3. EFFECTIVE Oil. TE
1 Feb 2000
CODe OSLR
4. REOUISITION/PURCHASE REO. NO.
7. ADMINISTERED BY (lJotherthatl /ttm 6)
Commanding Officer
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
19917 7th Avenue NE
poulsbo, WA 98370-7570
8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR 0., strut. county. Stat~ and ZIP 'od~)
'i) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT A TION NO.
City of Bremerton
c/o Parks and Recreation Department
680 Lebo Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310-3308
9B. Oil. TED (SEE mM iI)
X N4425598RPOOGll
lOB. Oil.. TED (SEE M H)
CODe FACILITY CODE As of 1 Jun 98
11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
o Ttle above numbered aoUcltation i. amended aa Bet forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer. 0 Is extended, 0 ill not ex.
tended.
Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified In tile aolleit.tion or as amended, by one of the following methods:
(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returnlng_ copiea of tile amendment: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the otter
submitted; or (c) By .apatate letter or telegram which includes a relerenca to tile solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGE.
MENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT
IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. II by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an otter already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or
leller, provided each telegram or letter make. reference to the solicitation and this amendment. and 18 received prior to the opening hour and date 8peclfied.
12. ACCOUNTING A NO APPROPRIA nON Oil. T A <<f nquir<</)
13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICjTIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.
IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER N"O. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.
M A. 'THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Sp~cifJ Qushoriry) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CON.
~ TRACT ORGER NO. IN ITEM tOA.
X Public Law 104-134
B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as cJwng~s i/l payillg offlc~.
appropriarioll dat~. ~fC.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).
C. THIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:
O. OTHER (Sptcify lyp~ of modlficatioll alld alllhority)
E. IMPORTANT: Contractor 0 Is not. [!J Is required to Bign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing office.
14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (OrganiZN by UCF ua/on h~ad/ngs, Including sollcitation/colllract subjtd IIItllttr whu~ f~tU/blt.)
Navy Lease Contract N4425598RPOOG11 is hereby amended to add the following
clauses, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof:
a. FAR 52.232-33 - Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer - Central
Contractor Registration (May 1999)
b. DFAR 252.204-7004 - Required Central Contractor Registration (March
1998)
15C. DA TE SIGNED
Officer
16C. Oil. TE SIGNED
BY
NOV ? q 2000
(Signature of persall Quthori~N 10 sign)
NSN 7540-01-152-1070
PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE
3o-rMUCATE ORIGINAL
STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)
Pr88crlbed b.Y GSA
FAR (48 CFR) 53.243
INSTRUCTIONS
"
Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as follows:
(a) Item 1 (Contract 10 Code). Insert the contract type
identification code that appears in the title block of
the contract being modified.
(b) Item 3 (EHective date).
(1) For a solicitation amendment, change order, or
administrative change, the effective date shall be
the issue date of the amendment, change order, or
administrative change.
(2) For a supplemental agreement, the effective date
shall be the date agreed to by the contracting
parties.
(3) For a modification issued as an initial or confirm-
ing notice of termination for the convenience of
the Government, the effective date and the modi-
fication number of the confirming notice shall be
the same as the effective date and modification
number of the initial notice.
(4) For a modification converting a termination for
default to a termination for the convenience of
the Government, the effective date shall be the
same as the effective date of the termination for
default.
(5) For a modification confirming the contracting
officer's determination of the amount due in
settlement of a contract termination, the effec-
tive date shall be the same as the effective date
of the initial decision.
(c) Item 6 (Issued By). Insert the name and address of
the issuing office. If applicable, insert the appropriate
issuing office code in the code block.
(d) Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor). For modi-
fications to a contract or order, enter the contractor's
name, address, and code as shown in the original con-
tract or order, unless changed by thIs or a previous
modification.
(e) Items 9, (Amendment of Solicitation No. -- Dated),
and 10, (Modification of Contract/Order No.--
Dated). Check the appropriate box and in the corres-
ponding blanks insert the number and date of the
original solicitation, contract, or order.
(f) Item 12 (Accounting and Appropriation Data). When
appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification
on each affected accounting classification by inserting
one of the following entries:
(1) Accounting classification
Net increase
$ .............................
(2) Accounting classification
Net decrease
$ ............... .............
NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting
classifications that cannot be placed in blOCk 12,
insert an asterisk and the words "See continuation
sheet" .
(g) Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the
type of modification. Insert in the corresponding
blank the authority under which the modification is
issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign
this document. (See FAR 43.103.)
(h) Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification).
(1) Organize amendments or modifications under the
appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF)
section headings from the applicable solicitation
or contract. The UCF table of contents, however.
shall not be set forth in this document.
(2) Indicate the impact of the modification on the
overall total contract price by inserting one of the
following entries:
lf (i) Total contract price increased by $
(Ii) Total contract price decreased by $
(ill) Total contract price unchanged.
(3) State reason for modification.
(4) When removing, reinstating. or adding funds,
identify the contract items and accounting classi-
fications.
(5) When the SF30 is used to reflect a determination
by the contracting Officer of the amount due in
settlement. of a contract terminated for the con-
venience of the Government, the entry in Item 14
of the modification may be limited to --
(I) A reference to the letter determination; and
(ii) A statement of the net amount determined
to be due in settlement of the contract.
(6) Include subject matter or short title of solicita-
tion/contract where feasible.
(i) Item 16B. The contracting officer's signature is not
required on solicitation amendments. The contracting
officer's signature is normally affixed last on supple-
mental agreements,
'! t . "..
.., ..
STANDARD FORM 30 BACK (Rev. 10-83)
1988 - 242-450/90156
FAR 52.232-33 - Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer - Central Contractor Registration (May
1999)
(a) Method of payment.
(I) All payments by the Government under this contract shall be made by electronic
funds transfer (EFT). except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this clause. As used in this '
clause, the term "EFT" refers to the funds transfer and may also include the payment information
transfer.
(2) In the event the Government is unable to release one or more payments by EFT,
the Lessor agrees to either-
(i) Accept payment by check or some other mutually agreeable method of
payment; or
(ii) Request the Government to extend the payment due date until such time as the
Government can make payment by EFT (but see paragraph (d) of this clause).
(b) Lessor's EFT information. The Government shall make payment to the Lessor using
the EFT information contained in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. In the
event that the EFT information changes, the Lessor ~all be responsible for providing the
updated information to the CCR database.
(c) Mechanisms for EFT payment. The Government may make payment by EFT through
either the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network, subject to the rules of the National
Automated Clearing House Association, or the Fedwire Transfer System. The rules governing
Federal payments through the ACH are contained in 31 CFR part 210.
(d) Suspension of payment. If the Lessor's EFT information in the CCR database is
incorrect, then the Government need not make payment to the Lessor under this contract until
correct EFT information is entered into the CCR database; and any invoice or contract financing
request shall be deemed not to be a proper invoice for the purpose of prompt payment under this
contract. The prompt payment terms of the contract regarding notice of an improper invoice and
delays in accrual of interest penalties apply.
(e) Lessor EFT arrangements. If the Lessor has identified multiple payment receiving
points (i.e., more than one remittance address and/or EFT information set) in the CCR database,
and the Lessor has not notified the Government of the payment receiving point applicable to this
contract, the Government shall make payment to the first payment receiving point (EFT
information set or remittance address as applicable) listed in the CCR database.
(f) Liability for uncompleted or erroneous transfers.
(1) If an uncompleted or erroneous transfer occurs because the Govermnent used the
Lessor's EFT information incorrectly, the Government remains responsible for-
(i) Making a correct payment;
(ii) Paying any prompt payment penalty due; and
(Hi) Recovering any erroneously directed funds.
(2) If an uncompleted or erroneous transfer occurs because the Lessor's EFT
information was incorrect, or was revised within 30 days of Government release of the EFT
payment transaction instruction to the Federal Reserve System, and-
(i) If the funds are no longer under the control of the payment office, the
Government is deemed to have made payment and the Lessor is responsible for recovery of any
erroneously directed funds; or
(ii) If the funds remain under the control of the payment office, the Government
shall not make payment, and the provisions of paragraph (d) of this clause shall apply.
(g) EFT and prompt payment. A payment shan be deemed to have been made in a timely
manner in accordance with the prompt payment terms of this contract if, in the EFT payment
transaction instruction released to the Federal Reserve System, the date specified for settlement
of the payment is on or before the prompt payment due date, provided the specified payment date
is a valid date under the rules of the Federal Reserve System.
(h) EFT and assignment of claims. If the Lessor assigns the proceeds of this contract as
provided for in the assignment of claims terms of this contract, the Lessor shall require as a
cond.ition of any such assignment, that the assignee shall register in the CCR database and shall
be paid by EFT in accordance with the tenns of this clause. In all respects, the requirements of
this clause shall apply to the assignee as if it were the Lessor. EFT information that shows the
ultimate recipient of the transfer to be other than the Lessor, in the absence of a proper
assignment of claims acceptable to the Government, is incorrect EFT information within the
meaning of paragraph (d) of this clause.
(i) Liability for change of EFT information by financial agent. The Government is not
liable for errors resulting from changes to EFT information made by the Lessor's financial agent.
0) Payment information. The payment or disbursing office shall forward to the Lessor
available payment information that is suitable for transmission as of the date of release of the
EFT instruction to the Federal Reserve System. The Government may request the Lessor to
designate a desired format and methodes) for delivery of payment information from a list of
formats and methods the payment office is capable of executing. However, the Government does
2
not guarantee that any particular format or method of delivery is available at any particular
payment office and retains the latitude to use the format and delivery method most convenient to
the Government. If the Government makes payment by check in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this clause, the Government shall mail the payment information to the remittance address
contained in the CCR database.
:-
3
DF AR 252.204-7004 - Required Central Contractor Registration (Mar 1998)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause-
(1) "Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database" means the primary 000 repository
for contractor information required for the conduct of business with DOD.
(2) "Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number" means the 9-digit number
assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services to identify unique business entities.
(3) "Data Universal Numbering System +4 (DUNS+4) number" means the DUNS
number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet plus a 4-digit suffix that may be assigned by a parent
(controlling) business concern. This 4-digit suffix may be assigned at the discretion of the parent
business concern for such purposes as identifying subunits or affiliates of the parent business
concern.
(4) "Registered in the CCR database" means that all mandatory information, including the
DUNS number or the DUNS+4 number, if applicable, and the corresponding Commercial and
Government Entity (CAGE) code, is in the CCR database; the DUNS number and the CAGE
code have been validated; and all edits have been successfully completed.
(b)
.',
(1) The lessor acknowledges the requirement of registration in the CCR database prior to
award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract.
(2) The lessor shall provide its DUNS or, if applicable, its DUNS+4 number, which will
be used by the Contracting Officer to verify that the lessor is registered in the CCR database.
(3) Lack of registration in the CCR database will make a lessor ineligible for award.
(4) DOD has established a goal of registering an applicant in the CCR database within 48
hours after receipt of a complete and accurate application via the Internet. However, registration
of an applicant submitting an application through a method other than the Internet may take up to
30 days. Therefore, lessors that are not registered should consider applying for registration
immediately.
(c) The Lessor is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the data within the CCR,
and for any liability resulting from the Government's reliance on inaccurate or incomplete data.
To remain registered in the CCR database after the initial registration, the Lessor is required to
confirm on an annual basis that its information in the CCR database is accurate and complete.
(d) Lessors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements by
calling 1-888-227-2423, or via the Internet at http://ccr.edLdisa.mil.
/
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF GOVERNMENT LEASE
l. FROM: 2. CONTRACT NO.
Commanding Officer (Code 05LR.LM) N4425598RPOOGII
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
19917 7th Avenue NE
Pou~bo, WA 98370-7570
, 3. TO:
City ofBremerton
c/o Parks and Recreation Department
680 Lebo Boulevard
Bremerton, W A 98310-3308
4. You are hereby notified that under the provisions of the Government lease described below, the United States of
America elects to renew the said lease as the same may have been amended, and does hereby renew, extend, and
adopt the said lease and all the terms, conditions, and general provisions thereof for the period beginning I June
2000 and ending 31 May 200 I.
5. REQUIRING ACTIVITY: Commanding Officer, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, 19917 7th A venue NE, Poulsbo, W A 98370-7570.
6. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE:
Navy Lease N4425598RPOOG II provides for the installation, operation, and maintenance of two monitoring
wells, one each on two plots of land, one on the north end and one on the south end of Naval Ammunition Depot
Marine Park, Bremerton, Washington.
Copy to:
ENGFLDACT NW (Muniments) DFAS Op Loc Oakland (FPV) ENGFLDACT NW (05ER)
ENGFLDACT NW (Lease File) DF AS Op Loc San Diego ENGFLDACT NW (0330MT)
ENGFLDACT NW (Contract Admin File) (FPVBB-EFD) SOUTHWESTDIV (0131)
SOUTHWESTDIV (04MG.NO)
7. NAME, POSITION, AND TlTI..E SIGNATURE DATE
MICHAEL D. BRADY l-f'tL.J AA 1'/ . &, a,
Director, Real Estate By direction of the Commander,
Real Estate Contracting Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command APR ,) ~ 200e
Acting under direction of the
Secretary of the Navy
8. NAVY ACCOUNTING DATA:
PAYMENT TO BE MADE BY: AMOUNT
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Operating Location Oakland (Code FPV), P.O. $100.00
Box 23870, Oakland, CA 94623.3870 (via DFAS Op Loc San Diego (Code FPVBB-EFD)).
ACCOUN IlNG CLASSIFICA nON TO BE CHARGED (DISBURSEMENT)
A, B. APPRQPRJA- C.SUB- 0.OB1. E.BU- F. G. H. l. J. K.
ACRN TION HEAD CLASS CONTROL SA AAA TT PAA COST CODE AMOUNT
AC 17??oo1804 KU1E 0232 44233 P 061711 2D ACOOP3 AClRPO 11 C03 l $100.00
Pcr AAnwn
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
TAHDA 0 FORM 2-8
=::..-:- U.S. Government DATE NO.
::..:.':.... Lease for Real Property (Short Form) AS OF 01 JUNE 98 N4425598RPOOG11
This LESSOR leaslS to the UNITeD STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called the GOVERNMENT, the described premises on the terms stated herein,
Includin the conditfons attached hereto.
1. LOCATION OF LEASED PREMISES
NAD MARINE PAR BREMERTON. WASHINGTON
2. DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
TWO PLOTS OF LAND, ONE ON THE NORTH END AND ONE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PARK. PLOTS MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 36
SQUARE FEET EACH AND WILL BE usee FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ONE MONITORING WELL AT
EACH LOCATION. MONITORING vveLl.S WILL BE "FLUSH MOUNT. TYPE. LOCATION OF THE PLOTS ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'AN
W11LL BE DETERMINED AT SITE VISIT BElWEEN NAVY CONTRACT DRILLER AND CITY OF BREMERTON OFFICIAL.
3. TeRM. To have and to hold:
For the term beginnIng 1 JUNE 1998 through 30 MAY 1999
From year to ye8r.thereafter; bUt not beyond 30 MAY 2003 this lease
MAY BE RENEWED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY GIVING AT LEAST 30 DAYS NOTICE IN WRITING TO THE LESSOR BEFORE THE LEASE
WOULD OTHERWISE EXPIRE, SAID NOTICE TO BE COMPUTED COMMENCING WITH THE CAY AFTER THE DATE OF MAILING.
4. TERMINATION. The Government m8Y terminate this lease at 8ny time by giving at least 30 days notice
to the Le..or. Said notice shall be cem uted cemmencin with the da alter the datil of melll .
5. RENTAL. The Government shall pay the Lessor annual rent of $100.00 at the rete of $100.00
In arrears. Rent for a lesser period shall be prorated. Rent checks shall be made payable to:
AIR CONOmONING
ELeVATOR SERVICE
W1NDOWWASHIMQ (all.n.dy)
JANrrOR SERVIC! AHD SUPPLIES
(11) INrrlALI..A/dPS. TU8ES,
BAllASTS AHD REPLACEMENTS
(12) MeCHANICAl. VENTILATION
------
GENERAL CLAUSES (GSA FORM 3517A) and REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (GSA FORM 3518A) ARE ATTACHED HERETO AND
MADE A PART HEREOF.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF USING ACTIVITY
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, NORTHWEST
19917 'PH AVE NUE N.E.
POULSBO WA 98370-7570
PAYING OFFICE
DFAS OP LQC OAKLAND (Code Fpv)
P.O.BOX23870 OAKLAND, CA 94823-3870
vIa: DFAS OP LOC SANDIEGO (Code FPVBS-EFO)
P.O. BOX 429100
SAN DIEGO CA 92142-9100
LESSOR
CITY OF BREMERTON
c/o PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
880 l..EIO AVE
B I!R
r
o c:
Director, Real Estate Division
Real Batate Contracting Officer
m~
BY
MOt
A.
AON
AA
J.
COlT coos
AA8RPGIIC031
AMOUNT
S100.00
CUPUCATE ORIGINAL
GENERAL CLAUSES (Simplified Leases)
(Acquisition of Leasehold Interests in Real Property for Leases Up to $100,000 Annual Rent)
1. The Government reserves the right, at any time after the lease is signed and during the term of the
lease, to inspect the leased premises and all other areas of the building to which access is necessary
to ensure a safe and healthy work environment for the Government tenants and the Lessor's
performance under this lease.
2. If the building is partially or totally destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty so that the leased
space is untenantable as determined by the Government, the Government may terminate the lease .
upon 15 calendar days written notice to the Lessor and no further rental will be due.
3. The Lessor shall maintain the demised premises, including the building, building systems, and all
equipment, fixtures, and appurtenances furnished by the Lessor under this lease, in good repair and
tenantable condition. Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the Lessor shall provide written
documentation that building systems have been maintained, tested, and are operational.
4. In the event the Lessor fails to perform any service, to provide any item, or meet any requirement of
this lease, the Government may perform the service, provide the item, or meet the requirement, either
directly or through a contract The Government may deduct any costs incurred for the service or item,
including administrative costs, from the rental payments.
5. 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (VARIATION) (JUN 1988)
This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they
were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available or the
full text may be found on the Internet at http://www.gsa.gov/pbs/pe/standcfa/standcfa.htm.
6. The following clauses are incorporated by reference:
GSAR 552-203-5
C;;SAR 552-203-73
FAR 52.209-6
FAR 52.219-9
FAR 52.219-16
FAR 52.222-24
FAR 52.222-26
FAR 52.222-35
FAR 52.222-36
INITIALS: ..:t:I }./
LESSOR
COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES (FEB 1990)
PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITY
(SEP 1990) (Applicable to leases over $100,000.)
PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST WHEN
SUBCONTRACTING WITH CONTRACTORS DEBARRED, SUSPENDED.
OR PROPOSED FOR DEBARMENT (AUG 1995) (Applicable to leases over
$25,000.)
SMALL, SMALL DISADVANTAGED AND WOMEN-OWNED SMALL
BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (AUG 1996) (Applicable to leases
over $500,000.)
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN
(OCT 1995) (Applicable to leases over $500,000.)
PREAWARD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE REVIEW (APR 1984)
(Applicable to leases over $1 million.)
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (APR 1984) (Applicable to leases over $10,000.)
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR SPECIAL DISABLED AND VIETNAM ERA
VETERANS (APR 1984). (AppHcable to leases over $10,000.)
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HANDICAPPED WORKERS (APR 1984)
(Applicable to leases over $2,500.)
& ~
~
GSA FORM 3517A PAGE 1 (REV 1/97)
FAR 52.222-37
FAR 52.232-23
GSAR 552.232-71
F AC 90-33
EMPLOYMENT REPORTS ON SPECIAL DISABLED VETERANS AND
VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM ERA (JAN 1988) (Applicable to leases over
$10,000.)
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS (JAN 1986)
PROMPT PAYMENT (APR 1989)
NAVY CONTRACT DISPUTES (MAY 1996)
FAR 52.215-22
THE FOLLOWING APPL Y WHEN COST OR PRICING DA TA IS SUBMITTED:
FAR 52.215-24
PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE COST OR PRICING DATA
(JAN 1991) (Applicable when cost or pricing data Is required for work or
services exceeding $500,000.)
SUBCONTRACTOR COST OR PRICING DATA (OCT 1995) (Applicable
when the clause 52.215-22 is applicable.)
The information collection requirements contained in this sollcJtation/contract, that are not required by
regulation, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act and assigned the OMB Control No. 3090-0163.
INITIALS: ~]-I
LESSOR
& IL
GOVERNMENT
GSA FORM 3517A PAGE 2 (REV 1197)
REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (Short Form)
(Simplified Acguisition of Leasehold Interests in Real Property for
leases Up to :ji1 00,000 Annual Rent)
Solicitation Number
Dated
Complete appropriate boxes, sign the form, and attach to offer.
The Offeror makes the fO/lowing Representations and Certifications. NO TE: The "Offeror," as used on this form, fs the owner of the
property offered, not an individual or agent representfng the owner.
1. SMALL BUSINESS REPRESENTATION (JAN 1997)
(a) It [ ] Is, M Is not a small business, .Small" means a concern, including Its affiliates, that Is Independently owned and
operatelfs not dominant in the field of operation, and has average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less for the
preceding three fiscal years. .
(b) It [ J Is, W'is not a small disadvantaged business. (See 48 CFR 52.219-1 for definitions.)
(c) It [ ] is, >4 is not a women-owned small business. (See 48 CFR 52.219-1 for definitions,)
2. 52.222-22 - PREVIOUS CONTRACTS AND COMPLIANCE REPORTS (APR 1984)
(Applicable to leases which exceed $10,000.)
The Offeror represents that --
(a) It r ] hasl M has not participated in a previous contract or subcontract subject either to the Equal Opportunity clause of
thfs sollctt~n, the clause originally contained in Section 310 of Executive Order No. 10925, or the clause contained in
SectJon 201 of executive Order No. 11114; .
(b) It r ] has, ~ has not filed all required compliance reports; and
(c) Representations indicating submission of required compliance report~1 signed b~ QrClposed subcontractors, will be
obfained before subcontract awards. (Approved by OM B under Control Number 1215-0072.)
3. 52.222-25 - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE (APR 1984)
(Applicable to leases whIch exceed $10,000,)
(Applicable to contracts whIch include the clause at FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.)
The Offeror represents that --
(a) It I ] has developed and has on file, ( ] has not developed and does not have on f1le,L at each establishment affirmative
adion programs required by the rules and regulations.o the Secretary of Labor (41 CrR 60-1 and 60-2), or
(b) It ( I has not preViOUSly had contracts subject to the written affirmative actIon programs requirement of the rules and
regulations of the Secretary of Labor. (Approved by OMS under Control Number 12f5-0072.)
4. 52.222-21 - CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES (APR 1984)
(Applicable to leases which exceed $10,000.)
(a) "Segregated facilities," as used in this provision, means any waiting rooms, work areas, rest rooms and wash rooms,
restaurants and other eatIng areas, time clocks locker rooms and otlier stora.;e or dressing areas, parking lata, drinking
fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, \ransportatlonL and housing ficilltles proVloed for employees, that are
segregated by explicit directive or are In fact segregated on tne basis of race, color, religIon, or national origin because
of Iiablt. local custom, or otherwise. .
(b) By the submission of this offer, the Offeror certifies that it does not and will not maintain or provide for ita employees any
segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not and will not permit lfs employees toperlbrm their
services at any. location under its COntrol where segre:gated facilities are maintained. The Offeror agrees that 8 breach
of this certification is a violatIon of the Equal Opportunify clause In the contract.
(c) The Offeror further agrees that (except where it has obtained identical certifications from proposed subcontractors for
specific time periods) It will-
(1) Obtain Identical certifications from ~roPQsed subcontractors before the award of subcontracts under which the
subcontractor will be subject to the Equal Opportunity clause;
(32) Retain the certifications in the flle8; and
( ) Forward the following notice to the proposed subcontractors (except if the proposed subcontractors have
submitted identical cert~catlons for specific time periods).
NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTORS OF REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATIONS OF NONSEGREGATED
FACILITIES.
A Certification of Nons~regBted Facilities must be submItted before the award of a subcontract uncler which the subcontractor
will be subject to the equal Opportunity clause. The certitlcation may be submitted either for each subcontract or for all
subcontracfs during i period (I.e., quarterly, semiannually, or annually).
INITIALS: c{3r/
LESSOR
& AI
GOVERNMENT
GSA FORM 3518A PAGE 1 (REV 1/97)
NOTE: The penal!)' for making false statements in offers is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(Approved by OMS under Con1rol Number 1215-0072.)
5. 52.203-11 CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE REGARDING PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL
TRANSACTIONS (APR 1991) (DEVIATION)
(Applicable to leases which exceed $100,000.)
(a) The definitions and prohibitions contained In the clause, at FAR 52.203-12, limitation on Payments to Influence Certain
Federal Transactions, are hereby incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this certification.
(b) The offero~ by signing its offer, hereby certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that on or after
December -,3, 1989, -- '.
(1) No Federal 8p-proprlated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for Influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agencYj a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress on h s or her behalf In connection with the awarding of a contract
resultln~ from this sollcltallon. .
(2) If any funds other than Federal arpropriated funds Oncludina profit or fee received under a covered Federal
transaction} have been paid, or wll be J:!ald. to any person for influencing or attempting to Influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member Of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress. or an employee of a
Member of Congress on his or her behalf In connection with this solicitation, the offeror shall complete and
submit, with its offer, OMS standard form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, to the Contracting Officer; and
(3) He or she will include the language of this certification in all subcontract awards at any tier ana require that all
recipients of subcontract awar(ls in excess of $100,000 shall certify and dIsclose accordingly.
(c) Submission o( this certification and disclosure is a prerequisite for making or entering Into this contract Imposed by
section 13521 title 31, United States Code. My person who makes an expenditure prohfbited under thIs provision or
who (ails to t1 e or amend the disclosure form to be filed or amended by this provision, shall be subject to a civil penalty
of not less than $10.000, and not more than $100,000, for each such tallure.
6. 52.204-3 TAXPAYER iDENTIFICATION (SEP 1989) (VARIATION)
(a) The Offeror is required to submit taxpayer identification information in order to ccmpl~ with reporting requirements of 26
U.S.C. 6041, 6041A, and 60S0M and Implementing regulations Issued by the Intemal Revenue Servlce (IRS). Failure or
refusal by the Offeror to furnish the In(ormatlon may result in a 20 percent reduction of peyments otherwIse due under
the contract. Taxpsy:er Information on the payee. It different from the offeror, is also required: hoWever, It may be
provIded at the time o( award.
(b) Offeror's Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
)<1 TIN: 91 -('{)OIt2~ I. [1 TIN has been applied for. [1 TIN fs not required.
(c) Corporate Status.
}(CorporatJon; [] Not a corporate entity: [] Sole proprietorship [J Partnership
(d) Common Parent.
"Common parentI." as used in this solicitation provision, means that corporate entity thal owns or controls an affilfated
group' of corpors-aons that Illes Its Federal income tax returns on a consolidated tiasis, and of which the Offeror Is a
member.
M Offeror is not owned or controlled by a common parent.
( l Name and TIN of common parent: Name TIN
(e) Payee's Taxpayer identification Number.
[ 1 TIN: . [] TIN has been applied for. [] TIN is not required.
7. OFFEROR'S DUNS NUMBER (AUO 1995) (enter number, If known):
OFFEROR OR
AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
Telephone Number .
3"0 'f?V- 'SYI
?-IHf
Date
INJT1ALS:~
LESSOR
& fu
GOVERNMENT
GSA FORM 351BA PAGE 2 (REV 1/97)
- - - O'tSTfl
I
:BAV
-I' "
II ,;
'llij.
i
OSTRICH
_ _ _ _ _ SA Y
- - - - - -- -
.f>#,
~_c;...
':r
- ~.
,
~
I
I
MADRON~
PT I
J
I
.J-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
i
"
n
_. _ _ .\S
I
AP
j
1 ... -.
UAKE
("
<0
:,--
~
,,'
"
~
..J
-
u
t . . .
" .' ~
d :::.' i .
;:.. 'DIII.rll tl
15T ST.
DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2008
BILL # 08 - /47
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
56"
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Award Contract for
Construction of Southwest Bremerton
Residential Sewer Extension Pump Station to
Pivetta Brothers Construction Inc.
Committee Meeting Date: June 11,2008
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 16,2008
Department: PW&U, Engineering
Presenter: Michael Mecham
Phone: 473-5288
SUMMARY: Sealed bids for construction of the project titled "SW Bremerton Residential Sewer
Extension Pump Station" were opened on June 3, 2008. The engineer's estimate for construction of
the project is $1,100,000. Four bids were received for this project. Pivetta Brothers Construction Inc.
was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder with a bid of$I,081,210.74 (including sales tax).
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Summary; 2. Site and Vicinity Map; 3. Bid Tabulation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Construction of this project is funded by a
revenue bond. The 2008 budget for this project, including construction of the force main, is
$4,750,000.
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING D
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to award a contract in the amount of$I,081,210.74 (including sales tax) with Pivetta Brothers
Construction Inc. for construction of the project titled "SW Bremerton Residential Sewer Extension
Pump Station" and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the necessary contract documents for
construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
T:\ALL USERS\ WOODS\Agenda Bills\2008\Award Contract Construction SWBRSE PS\agendabillSWBremSewerPS.doc
SW Bremerton Residential Sewer Extension Pump Station (SB-1)
Council Summary
Contract Summary
This project will construct a sewer pump station to intercept waste water flow from
developments in SW Bremerton and convey them to the WWTP.
Pivetta Brothers Construction Inc. was the low bidder in the amount of $1,081,210.74
(including sales tax).
There were 3 other bidders. The construction will be completed within 180 days of
Notice to Proceed. The estimated completion date is February 2009.
This project is included in the current CIP.
Fiscal Summary
The project is funded by a revenue bond. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is
$1,100,000. The 2008 budget is $4,750,000, which includes budget for the force main
which will be constructed separately.
City ofBrt!m/!/'lon
SlY Bremer/on Sel1'er Pump S'/a/lOn
.fune ]()()8
CITY OF BREMERTON
BID TABULATION
BID TITLE:
SW Bremerton Res. Sewer Ext. Pump Station
OPENED BY:
Carol Etgen
DATE OPENED:
June 3, 2008
TIME OPENED:
1:05 PM
RECORDED BY:
Brad Ginn
NAME OF BIDDER BOND ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 ITEM 6 SALES TOTAL
TAX
~_1 f\.lt..Hc.-r ~"""-7t y' , -, i", I7&;,' (, vyr 3 (')- j' (;
j 1 ''':'''1 ' - ' ' "
j -;--~,-- ---
@~i::'.;"'i (<. "_,' \ III. <- Y II cS'i: '-6 7 ~:u
I (V
Pi 'Ie:. H-c, Dt-'L:l ~ I oJ-I 2.. 10, +'1'
I
L.t\\I t c. \ L St.'- 1<. (~j,-, ~-+ V- I, J 1../0 ;,-c.;,,' >1
I
SUMMARY TOTAL BID COMMENTS
I-APPARENT LOW BIDDER ENGINEER ESTIMATE (INC SALES TAX) $
i.~:;f-'I y-r ,::.f "I''-"r Cc..,t.,.'r /, C' '-I i", ~ 1')-, j c, g /, I" :it (; O(.l,
("IL"
SECOND lOW BIDDER
F' ' ~-) !-t.J S.
" v" fiLl I (;.i ;r I , 2 /f..:). l 'I
THIRD lOW BIDDER
E <=' i ~-.Jt' y I ~Il..- II () S';;' I 'N l /'()
,
DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2008
BILL# OB - 14 B
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
'A
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Contract Award for
Construction of Harlow Drive Pedestrian
Improvements to Serpanok Construction.
Committee Meeting Date: June 11,2008
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 16, 2008
Department: Engineering
Presenter: Michael Mecham
Phone: 473-5288
SUMMARY: Sealed bids for construction of the project titled "Harlow Drive Pedestrian
Improvements" were opened on June 3,2008. The engineer's estimate for this project is $188,266.40.
Two bids were received for this project. Serpanok Construction was the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder with a bid of $ 163,435.30 (including sales tax). '
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Council Summary; 2) Aerial Photos; and 3) Bid Tabulation.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Construction of this project is funded by FHW A.
This project is included in the CIP and 2008 budget. The 2008 budget for this project is $290,000.
APPROVALS: ~'
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: .
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA D
GENERAL BUSINESS Q(
PUBLIC HEARING D
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a contract in the amount of$ 163,435.30 (including
sales tax) with Serpanok Construction for construction of the project titled "Harlow Drive Pedestrian
Improvements" and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the necessary documents for
construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table D Continue D No Action
T:\ALL USERS\WOODS\Agenda Bills\2008\Award Contract Construction Harlow Dr Ped Irnprvrnnts\agendabillJorm.doc
COUNCIL SUMMARY
Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements
Contract Summary
This contract provides for the improvement of Harlow Drive between East Lake Drive
and Osprey Circle with the construction of a 4-foot wide asphalt concrete shoulder
between East Lake Drive and Lyle A venue, the construction of a monolithic cement
concrete sidewalk and curb between Lyle A venue and Osprey Circle, and other work, all
in accordance with the Contract Plans, the Special Provisions, and the Standard
Specifications. This project, also, consists of removing existing street paving, concrete
sidewalk, curb, and gutter, installing permanent signing, and channelization,
hydroseeding, and providing traffic control and other work.
Fiscal Summary
The engineer's estimate for this project is $188,266.40 and the 2008 budget for this
project is $290,000.
Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements
Council Summary
June 2008
BID TABULATION
Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements: Osprey Circle to East Lake Drive
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Serpanok Construction Northern Con-AQQ
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST
PREPARATION
1 MOBILlZA nON L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $39,000.00 $39,000.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC. 0.4 $12,000.00 $4,800.00 $3,500.00 $1,400.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00
3 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTION L.S. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
4 SAWCUT L.F. 2400 $3.50 $8,400.00 $1.00 $2,400.00 $2.75 $6,600.00
5 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK S.Y. 22 $37.00 $814.00 $10.00 $220.00 $15.00 $330.00
6 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 40 $20.00 $800.00 $15.00 $600.00 $10.00 $400.00
7 REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT S.Y. 574 $10.00 $5,740.00 $10.00 $5,740.00 $7.00 $4,018.00
GRADING
8 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 590 $10.00 $5,900.00 $14.00 $8,260.00 $30.00 $17,700.00
9 EMBANKMENT COMPACTION C.Y. 149 $10.00 $1,490.00 $15.00 $2,235.00 $10.00 $1,490.00
10 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL C.Y. 149 $30.00 $4,470.00 $17.00 $2,533.00 $35.00 $5,215.00
STORM SEWER
11 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EACH 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00
12 STEEL CORRUGATED CULV. PIPE 121N. DIAM. L.F. 10 $35.00 $350.00 $40.00 $400.00 $65.00 $650.00
13 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS B INCL. HAUL C.Y. 200 $10.00 $2,000.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $13.00 $2,600.00
SURFACING
14 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TON 427 $30.00 $12,810.00 $33.60 $14,347.20 $36.00 $15,372.00
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
15 HMA CL. 1/2", PG 64-22 TON 220 $140.00 $30,800.00 $115.60 $25,432.00 $136.00 $29,920.00
EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING
16 FINE COMPOST C.Y. 60 $35.00 $2,100.00 $22.00 $1,320.00 $75.00 $4,500.00
17 SEEDING AND FERTILIZING S.Y. 2042 $1.50 $3,063.00 $0.55 $1,123.10 $2.00 $4,084.00
18 BARK MULCH C.Y. 8 $30.00 $240.00 $26.00 $208.00 $130.00 $1,040.00
19 TEMPORARY WATER POLLUTIONIEROSION CONTROL L.S. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $100.00 $100.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
20 TESC PLAN L.S. 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $100.00 $500.00 $500.00
TRAFFIC
21 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE I HUND 1.77 $170.00 $300.90 $450.00 $796.50 $500.00 $885.00
22 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE II HUND 0.59 $450.00 $265.50 $1,250.00 $737.50 $1,500.00 $885.00
23 PAINT LINE L.F. 1440 $0.30 $432.00 $0.55 $792.00 $0.65 $936.00
24 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 250 $12.50 $3,125.00 $4.00 $1,000.00 $5.00 $1,250.00
25 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $30.00 $30.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
26 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
BID TABULATION
Harlow Drive Pedestrian Improvements: Osprey Circle to East Lake Drive
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Seroanok Construction Northern Con-Aqq
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST
OTHER ITEMS
27 MAILBOX SUPPORT TYPE 2 EACH 2 $450.00 $900.00 $100.00 $200.00 $525.00 $1,050.00
28 MAILBOX SUPPORT TYPE 1 EACH 3 $250.00 $750.00 $150.00 $450.00 $350.00 $1,050.00
29 MONOLITHIC CEMENT CONC. CURB AND SIDEWALK S.Y. 509 $35.00 $17,815.00 $40.00 $20,360.00 $45.00 $22,905.00
30 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 1 EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00
31 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 2 EACH 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,350.00 $4,050.00
32 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE S.Y. 70 $70.00 $4,900.00 $45.00 $3,150.00 $47.00 $3,290.00
33 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 8 $200.00 $1,600.00 $250.00 $2,000.00 $235.00 $1,880.00
34 ADJUST WATER METER BOX EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $500.00 $235.00 $470.00
35 ABANDON EXISTING CATCHBASIN EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
36 MINOR CHANGES EST. 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
37 ROADSIDE CLEANUP L.S. 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
38 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
I ESTIMATE TOTAL
$188,266.401
$163,435.30 I
$177,171.001
~..'JJ,';"-<;; ; ,r-" .......,..,... '
~ ,.a I .f. .:-< .r ~~-i' .
1ooo.;~'1 'i\~>~~ .:,,~,;~..>l,;/'
.~, '.
,r
..~'
:,~;,~,'d
'.".t," '"
;~"" ,~'",' ' < 1::. ~:l
,. ~ "~I ",,,!?ll
"',:'\:,;,;:: " ';
I.' ..:, ;:'~- -~.. '.
. '- . ...
, "
. . ;-,---" ~~"~~" " ',',;c;, . ',.
II e,., " '," ' '" '" "I,
'. :.7'.. ... ''):'' /.... "". '.' ,
!J:~~ 'Jy:-''''j ~~:;:\1i'\1_;. /-, ':l \. ~\. .. Ii . ),1._ "'~~~~~
"~.~" ,', ~1_ ~,,~." _-""J~l;",
'c{ '.
,v l~
it-'s~ ~ \;t.~:< '~. .'?
'~~:,','<:.,"
~i~~_,:,;~,~ ,,:>.ft.;>'
. . ::-,-.'
.':'; .>t;.:}~\.~:~;"
,..;"'........
<. _~,..):.~:: ~:J'
::~;:((f;:.~i~~;:
'. -;....~-' >
o<\~
't'..l'.::. _""
.~" :~2:-i..~;, ~: .:~
- -,.'?< ."-",. ........ ...,...'
"
~
o
z
:s
a.
/'
"
~
o
/
~
q
ii'
-<
I
/
I"-
o
CO
N
"'
...
~
o
'"
a.
o
z
:s
/'
~
~
o
'"
a.
/'
,:.:
NO,
REVISIONS
OESC'RIPTION
CI TY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DIVISION
HARLOW DRIVE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
SIDEWALK / SHcC)ULDER
PLAN AND PROFILE
FIELD BOgK
2"
1"
o
OATE
BY
TWO INCHES AT FULL SCALE
I." NOT ,SCALE Ac:CORDINGL Y
SCALE
ORAWING NO'I ORAWN BY; S,J,
PL4N OATE 04/07
CHECKED BY;
WAS;-t, P E. #
DESIGN BY: E.A.
WASH, P,L # 42260 DATE 0,4/07 '
OATE.
HORIZ, 1 "~20'
VERT, 1 "~5'
~
z
w
13
>
0
'"
CL
;;;
Z
-<
,~
~
'0
w
a.
S'H EET w
>
ii'
13 0
~I ~
OF 0
-'
'"
<(
:c
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
BILL # D ra -- 14_ Cf
~B
DATE SUBMITTED: 06-03-08
..................~..................................................................,
SUBJECT: Resolution a~~z~ Committee Meeting Date: 06-11-08
expenditures of funds received from the 2008 COUNCIL MEETING Date: 06-16-08
EMS Levy Ballot Measure. Department: Fire
Presenter: Al Duke, Fire Chief
Phone: 473-5381
SUMMARY: This Resolution will identify where the funds would be expended if the citizens pass
the 2008 EMS Levy Ballot Measure. As presentations are starting to be made on the ballot measure,
this Resolution will enable them to show where the revenues would be spent.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. :3 0 b2...
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
APPROVALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA 0
GENERAL BUSINESS ~
PUBLIC HEARING 0
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution # 3 0 "':L
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
RESOLUTION NO. 3()fo d-
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, detailing authorized expenditures of funds
received fhHn the 2008 EMS Levy Ballot Measure.
WHEREAS, The City of Bremerton adopted Resolution No. 3059, which contains
a proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the district for approval or rejection of
additional property tax levies to fund emergency medical services; and
WHEREAS, if approved, the City of Bremerton will levy additional regular
property taxes in the amount of $.50 per $1000 of assessed property value for each of the years
2009-2014; and
WHEREAS, revenue collected by this levy may only be used for emergency
medical care or services and related costs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify and specify the specific uses for
the revenue collected by this levy, if any; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Revenue collected from the property tax levy, if approved by the
voters, will be used to fund costs for personnel, training for such personnel, and necessary
equipment, supplies, vehicles and structures needed for the provision of emergency medical care
or servIces.
SECTION 2. The intent of the City Council of the City of Bremerton is that any
increase in revenue collected from the property tax levy, if approved by the voters, would not
replace current funding levels but would be used to supplement current funding levels, enhancing
the ability of the Bremerton Fire Department to provide emergency services.
SECTION 3. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this'_
,2008.
WILL MAUPIN, Council President
2008 EMS Levy Revenue Use
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
R:\Lcgal\Legal\ResollltillI1S\Fin:'2()()X EMS Levy lIse.doc
ATTEST:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
2
2008 EMS Levy Revenue u.....'e
DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2008
BILL #
08-/50
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
~c
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Resolution No. ~ 0 ~and
Resolution No.3~approving annexation
proceedings for two territories in the South
Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA).
Committee Meeting Date: June 11,2008
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 16, 2008
Department: DCD / PW / Finance
Presenter: Andrea L. Spencer
Phone: 360.473.5283
SUMMARY: The action before Council is the consideration of two annexation petitions in the South
Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA). The two petitions were presented to the City on April 22, 2008 and
are described as the "SKIA North Petition" and the "SKIA South Petition." As required by State Law
the petitions include the signatures by owners of not less than 10% of assessed property value in the
area proposed for annexation (in fact, the petitions contain the signatures of 100% of the owners).
State Law requires that the City Council conduct a meeting with the petitioners within 60 days of
petition submittal and staffhas timely scheduled this meeting to occur on June 16,2008. Following
the meeting with the Petitioners the City Council has the option to accept, reject, or geographically
modify the petitions. Should the Council decide to accept the petitions, the proposed resolutions
presented with this report will do so and will allow the annexation to proceed to the next step,
gathering of signatures on the "75% Petition."
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution No. 3ChS SKIA North petition area
2) Resolution No. 36~ SKIA South petition area
3) SKIA Annexation Financial Assessment Study (attached as separate spiral-bound report)
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
Complete cost / benefit analysis is:2~aChed in the SKIA Annexation Financial Assessment Study.
APPROVALS:
h
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: /'
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
, j4~6"Jt.-
CONSENT AGENDA 0
GENERAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING 0
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. 3o~3 accepting the propo~al to commence annexation proceedings
for the territory known as SKIA North, As O""Vh.~erJ.
Move to pass Resolution No. 30"4 accepting the proposal to commence annexation proceedings
for the territory known as SKIA South) As o.JIY\~ed.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table 0 Continue 0 No Action
,oj
RESOLUTION NO. 3063
;;3
.,.., ;:v. /.
lrl
I
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, accepting the proposal for annexation and
authorizing the circulation of a petition for annexation.
geographically modifying the area proposed to be annexed by
adding a portion of State. Route 3 adiacent to the proposed
annexation area, and further requiring the assumption of all of the
City's existing indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City received a petition for annexation of
territory to the City of Bremerton from McCormick Land Co. and Alpine Evergreen Co., Inc.;
and
WHEREAS, the area proposed by the petitioners for annexation is described and
further depicted in the Petition for Annexation of Territory to City of Bremerton attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of one hundred percent (100%)
of the property according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned, which is
well in excess ofthe ten percent (10%) in value of the property required to initiate an annexation
into the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of not less than ten percent
(10%) of the acreage for which annexation is petitioned; and
WHEREAS, on May 1,2008, the City also received a petition for
annexation/request to join annexation of approximately 5.67 acres of property to the City of
Bremerton from Sylvan Products, Inc. ("Sylvan"), attached hereto as Exhibit B and further
identified in the area map also attached hereto as Exhibit B which is incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within an Urban Growth
Area (UGA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council must meet with the initiating parties not later than
60 days after filing the request for annexation to consider the petition and decide whether it will
1) accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2) require the simultaneous
adoption of the comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and 3) require the
assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, City Council has set June 16,2008 as the date that it will meet with
the initiating parties to consider the petition; and
1
Annexation - SKU North
10% Petition Resolution
,>
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it in the best interest of the City to decline
to geographically modify the area proposed to be annexed by adding the Sylvan property as
described in Exhibit B in that doing so at this time would create boundaries that are not uniform
for the area proposed to be annexed by Petitioners. but to add that portion of State Route 3
adiacent to the proposed annexation area as identified in Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the area proposed for annexation is described in Exhibit C attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive plan designation for the area proposed to be
annexed will not be adopted herein; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that it in the best interest of the City to accept the
proposed annexation as presented without any geographic modification to the area proposed to
be annexed as geographically modified herein and further to require the assumption of all or any
portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Petition for Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton
set forth in Exhibit A is hereby accepted as presented with geographic modification to the area
proposed to be annexed bv the addition of that portion of State Route 3 adiacent to the proposed
annexation area aHEl-as further described in Exhibit C, v/ithout any geographic modification to
the area proposed to be annexed,.
SECTION 2. The City Council shall require the assumption of all existing City
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
SECTION 3. The initiating parties shall be required to submit the appropriate
seventy-five percent (75%) annexation petition as required by law to proceed with the proposed
annexation.
SECTION 4. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _
, 2008.
2
Annexation - SKIA North
10% Petition Resolution
" .
WILL MAUPIN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Files\Current Active Files\SKIA \10% Annexation Petition Resolution - SKIA North Final.doc
3
Annexation - SKIA North
10% Petition Resolution
EXHIBIT A
INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
I-()-@
April 14', 2008
City Council
City of Bremelton
345 6th St. Suite 600
Bremerton, W A 98337
iRECEIVED. (llY COUNCil OFFICE"
JATE -!:I~8 _
Re: Alpine \ McCormick Land Co. SR-3 Annexation
Dear City Councilmembers,
We the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than 10% of the value of propelty,
according to the assessed valuation records for general taxation purposes of the Assessor
of Kitsap County, of the following described real property situated in Kitsap County,
Washington, respectfully file this Notice ofIntention to Commence Annexation
Proceedings ("Notice") requesting that said real property be annexed to the City of
Bremel'ton, Washington and we respectfully state as follows:
I. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as per the
legal description attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this Notice.
2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached hereto
as EXHIBIT B and is made a part of this Notice.
3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Brcmerton and is in Kitsap
County, and is within an Urban Growth Area.
4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council of the City of
Bremerton enteltain this Notice and fix a date for a meeting with the initiating patties
within 60 days of the filing of this Notice as per RCW 35.15.125. The undersigned
Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council determine at said meeting whether it
\\Till accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; whether it will
require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan; and whether it will require
the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be
annexed.
Tax Parcel Number(s) 012301-4-015-1004,012301-4-025-1002,122301-1-009-1005,
122301-1-010-1002, 4< 301- - 07-1007,122301-1-008-1006
By:
Doug Skrobut, President
McCormick Land Company
4978 SW Lake Flora Road
P011 Orchard, W A 98367
Tax Parcel Number(s) 012301-4-016-1003,012301-4-013-1006,012301-4-012-1007,
01230] -4-017-1002
By:
~-'-J
..-- ..~
..c:.. . \:~'O-(f'V \~, I ~_~ (~~
\
Rot> ~JD I \?t%,~
h.-4>tN8 b:\}f:.--t=-~t;:N Go, (TNc..
7 f;ttf s4.fe.. \~ ~3, .~U0
r'o~ ~~ \ w+\ or6~~7
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
Parcell
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
QUARTER CORNER OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE
NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 755.2 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 14; THENCE S44*53'W
ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 2863.2 FEET; THENCE S45*07'E 50 FEET TO
THE FORMER SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY AND THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S45*07 E TO THE EAST LINE OF
SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO
THE SOUTH MARGIN OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. ]4; THENCE S44*53'W TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONTAINED
WITHIN STATE HIGHWAY NO. 21 (LOST LAKE TO GORST) CONDEMNED
UNDER KITSAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 40135.
Parcel II
BEG A l' 114 SEC COR ON E LN OF SEC N 755.2FT TO CEN OF HWY NO 14
S44*53'O W ALG SD CEN LN 2863.2FT S45*7'O E 50FT TO SEL Y LN OF RD &
TPOB S44*53'0 W 300FT S45*7'0 E TO E LN OF SW1I4 SEl/4 N TO PT WH IS
N45*7'0 W OF POB N45*7'O W TO BEG
Parcel III ,
THAT PT OF SW1I4 SE1I4 DES AS FOLS BEG AT 1/4 COR OF E LN OF SD SEC
1 N ALG E LN OF SD SEC 755.2FT MIL TO CEN OF HWY NO]4 S44*50' W
ALG SD CEN LN 2863.2FT S45*07' E 50FT TO SEL Y LN OF SD HWY 544*53' W
ALG SD SEL Y LN 300FT TO TPOB CONT S44*53' W 300FT 845*07' E 800FT
N44*53' E 300FT N45*07' W 800FT TO TPOB
Parcel IV
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE] WEST, W.M., IN
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING
AT THE'QUARTER CORNER ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 755.2 FEET,
MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 14; THENCE
S44*53'W ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 2863.2 FEET; THENCE S45*07'E 50
FEET TO THE FORMER SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY;
THENCE S44*53'W ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN 600 FEET;
THENCE S45*07'E 800 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N44*53'E 300 FEET; THENCE S45*07'E TO THE EAST LINE OF
SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID SUBDIVISION TO
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE THEREOF TO A POINT S45*07'E OF THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N45*07'W TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel V
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING
AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 755.2 FEET,
MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 14; THENCE
S44*53'W ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 2863.2 FEET; THENCE S45*07'E 50
FEET TO THE FORMER SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID HIGH\VAY;
THENCE S44*53'W ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN 600 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S45*07'E TO THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND
DELINEATED ON SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR FILE NO.
7710310110; THENCE N43*58'23 W 756.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY
MARGIN OF HIGHWAY 14; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID
SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF HIGHWAY 14 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; EXCEPT ANY PORTION WITHIN STATE HIGHWAY NO. 14.
Parcel VI
RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED
UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200505040439, RECORDS OF KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTH HALF
OI<' THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 23
NORTH, RANG~ 1 WEST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 1 (SOUTH
1/16); THENCE NORTH 85*48'24" WEST, 732.73 FEET ALONG THE NORTH
'LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
SOUTH 8*11 '30" EAST; 110.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36*15'46" EAST, 94.25
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25*16'38" EAST, 106.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
601<39'06" EAST, 73.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24*59'37" EAST, 101.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 59*32'22" EAST, 64.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41*19'10"
EAST, 49.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14*02'30" EAST, 49.04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 22*17'19" WEST, 285.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61 *06'30" EAST,
108.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84*41'14" EAST, 71.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH
67*27'10" EAST, 79.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84*54'57" EAST, 51.37 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 57*48'371f EAST, 47.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87*59'38"
EAST, 130.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47*51'411f EAST, 62.14 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION THE POINT OF
TERMINA TION.
Parcel VII
RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED
UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200612260269, RECORDS OF KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 23
NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE
SOUTH 1 *09'55" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF
300.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
SOUTH 1 *09'55" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1032.07
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 84*40'00" WEST ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 32'~21 '22" EAST 1155.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; EXCEPT ROADS.
Parcel VIII
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M.,
KIT SAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS, AND SUBJECT TO
RESERV A TIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
Parcel IX
THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M.,
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS, AND SUBJECT TO
RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
Parcel X
RESULTANT PARCEL B OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED
UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200612260269, RECORDS OF KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
NORTREAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE SOUTH 1 *09'55"
WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 1 *09'55"
WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1032.07 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 84*40'00" WEST ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
32*21'22'1 EAST 1155.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
"!:'::""ff'~:
..' Ill'"
,. ;5 : i.'
~~.J . ---"
! i~j~;tu<':
! . :", ~~~{~~'r-~:-Hi
Legend
Parcols
Road Names
Greater Pugllt
Sound Hydro
Mllltary
< '
. \~;1r
1k-. '
'. '''+"
'. 'it
J7JC
',..: .
'_ I
.. .. ~:~'.f.l
a::.....
....Q ,'"
;r;
-'"~::- .--
~.
rn
.~.
.. ;lJ
d
TIC
. :......;_.
~. ~ . ';~~~.:
. ~::':
! ~;:' ;::~
, :S:'i'
.~
.--,' :,
:.:,:: ':.~. 01~'ftO
, Cl"\\ ~. "'-.
S'l~ O\..\) I . :..
Co Ii ht @ 2008 Kitsa
DISCLAIMER: This map is in/ended for display purposes only and is not intended for
any legal representations.
EXHIBIT B
RE: PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
April 28, 2008
Lindsey Sehmel
City Planner
345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337-1873
Dear lindsey,
"RECEIVED
DATE -:k~ )~:CIL OFFICE"
, II:~
Please submit our application at the proper time so that it does not slow the process or impede
the main pending application for the City of Bremerton-SKIA Annexation Proposal.
We thank you for the expeditious manner you are doing your work.
Sincerely,
"/'f} /'----J / ,
4J.c~/1<-A./)t..oii:<-7<'..Ii!~
Kenneth and Gloria Haines
3202 96th Street NW
Gig Harbor, WA. 98332
253-853-4279
gloria ha i nes@comcast.net
rD)g@[gD'Y7@1iY
JI} MAY 01 2008 ~
BREMERTOI\)-DEPT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEI\JT
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
April 28, 2008
City Council
City of Bremerton
345 6th St. Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Property located at 4729 St. HWY 3 SW
Dear City Council Members,
We the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than 75% of the value of property, according to the
assessed valuation records for general taxation purpose of the Assessor of Kitsap County, of the
following described real property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, respectfully file this Petition for
Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton ("Petition") requesting that said real property be
annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington and respectfully state as follows:
1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as per the legal
description attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this partition.
2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B
and is made a part of this petition.
3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Bremerton and is in Kitsap County, as is
within City of Bremerton's Urban Growth Area.
4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request the City Council to start the proceedings for
Annexation to the City of Bremerton.
Kitsap County
Tax Parcel No. 0014894
4729 St. HWY 3 SW
By: Gary Bozeman, Mayor
\D)~@~Q\B@I[)'.
UU tv'IAY 01 2008 ~
BREMERTOl\l-DUYf. OF .
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENl
Council take formal action to accept and approve the proposed annexation and
to authorize a filing with the Boundary Review Board of a Notice of Intent to
Annex the described property.
SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC.
Tax Parcel No. 122301-2-001-1001
SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC.
Tax Parcel No. 012301-3-009-1004
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
FOR
4729 STATE HIGHWAY 3 SW
ACCOUNT NUMBER 122301-2-001-1001
BEG AT NE COR OF NE1/4 NW1/4 S 700FT MIL TO TR CONVEYED OCT 21942 TO
HARRY EARL NWL Y ALG SO TR 1040FT MIL TO ST HWY NO.14 E 774.3FT TO
TPOB
ACCOUNT NUMBER 012301-3-009-1004
THAT PART OF S1/2 DES AS FOLS BEG AT INTERSECTION OF S LN OF SO SEC
WITH SEL Y LN OF STATE HWY NO. 14 NEL Y ALG SO HWY 500FT MIL TO WL Y LN
TR CONVEYED MARCH 271941 TO EDNA COOK BY AUD FILE NO. 414543 SELY
ALG SD COOK TR TO S LN OF SEC 1 W ALG SO S LN TO POB SUBJ TO
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT 8 Ui
/----:
// -
~
,/
.L-...r-
~L
\
/j
Ii
, i
,
i
-"~""'.~
0'
C}'~~ \O~
e<
1e~
f
i
,
I
i
122301.2.001.1001 I
I
1
I
I
-9~
rban Gro~th Area
I
I
!' !
i!
it--
I ! ~ .
~! r
!------i b_ i ~I
~ -J !
, L
I I I .
W<----i
L---,
I i ~c-
l-
I !---,
I~-
I, \
\ \
\ \,
\ ,
\ ,
\ \
-, \
\ \--'
\ \ '
~ ~';---
\~
\
i
LI
.......City limits /. SKI A UGA
c=J TaxPareels
600 .
L--_cu-' . I Feet
o
:m
i,,:
Exhibit "B"
. . ,?~ ij
~ ~~ ~~
i~V .' ii
Ii ,iY ::;
- ,,#'. .,' ii
j M.' fi
:t'i',,'i: . ,u,,~'! ' .:"
" " . .' ~, "'I ".. . U
~ . _ "/lClI/cr:,,,,,. # ~. .... ; :::
~ :I . 9 .' ", II . .;...~ ;'\:. ;>-',"\,l=HllU
II - ,.~. '" il 'fJ"Y ""'."8" ',.; '.,'" " ;."'~.
~ .J, ' ..' . ",~ :~\ ',~>J . vIA" ',:":
.11=:11"'":6' . '.', , =&~' '-.. ;" ",yO' ,.' ,
t ; &'l;_ro~lH./(I=(/I=~'=lII~:"";I'=I"J'" ': \ / ':~~~!1~',>
II ' '" / ", ~"4i.t' ',:".'., ':
! ' "/ 10,,~~IJ()11
~~~ "
~
~" .
r
f
~
~
i
!
~
~
~
~
~
Jj
~\
~", .
~",
",
~,~,/'
,,~ /
....\..,~'\. ///
,....#/.
~' /
~~'.
",
",~~
~I:
,....-#...... '\',\
~""" ':,
#" ""-, "\/
~... '-." \,
,# ", >
~' /
",
., ,,~
::....t~\...
~\. <>\
! ~'v
",,, ,/
II \'" V
'" /
~
~
~
~
ii
::; , , D
1.'a:WAtH=atIltIi:UUQI ; ::
l~Ia;-lllc:.tll'=tll_llr=jIJ.IU=ltl_lll!J
City of Bremerton-SKIA North
Haines Request
/
/
2-HUllu
M
ii
ii""'''''''''''''J~
~
~
~
!!
~
ij"=I~I"'IlJ_'''''''':''''=IJI''L
, ' ~
.~
g
~
jj
~
'~
"~
,,<Ii
, ",+'
! ,,+
,,,4fJ"
,,+'
\....?'\;
,,+'
;:r.....?\
,,?'
, ",?'
:S:: : " , ' +,,'+
II'" ',' ",
....".~ 1'1/'\0' " , \UiiIIIltJ . ~.:-9
1...:1 1/11>.. .,;("...,11.... ~III__ ",</I
~1Jlliilli.\\1 IIJ'
ii
,,-,,/
\,
/
>,
"
N
A
M
!
~
fi
!
t~
Haines
Request
Legend
~lIl_L
'"I.,IP SKIA UGA
f~fjl/ll.iIt~
ij,"i;H~ City Limits
Tho CIty of Bremenon does not Vlarrarlt the
accuracy ot thiS informaHon or mapplno. wli~ch
Should (1(')1 be relied upon without fndependenl
verification of accuracy, The user asswnes all
nsks re-Iatec to or arnsmg from the use of this
in10rmaliDn or mnpPlng
Prepared By: Lindsey SBhmel
Printing Oate, June 3, 2008
File: R.ICo:l1munlly DevelopmenllCommunlly DevelopmentlG IS _Archive\Revi ,ed _ Slructure\Bremerton_ Cily\Growlh_Anno,,\SKIA ISKIA MapsISKIA_N_ EXh_ 8, mxd
Clly 01 8remerton
City of Bremerton-SKIA North
Area Proposed for An nexation"~;<~>,;>:", :>;;:;;);.:~.:~ (/ >;",~ ;<>i::
Geog raphically Mod ifit.~F~8)~'9.r99~::~;:~~:qiB~.~~~~~~c~:~{~~~:~~~j<,~.~ i
://~/'i.4/ //,""/~//~'J"'~r,l~~/I"'~tj'/I',/ ~A/-~<f"~/~/~ ~//,,",.r"/",../. -,~~;, J, -ii
,.. ,'.....i J<i , .T./ ," 0' ;" -,,' ~ '., ~ ~ ~'" ,..-' .. J ,/ t ,'". / / /' ,. ... I- " '" ./r.l',f t' ?"-",, "'../' ~ r~ ~~ -
:l!". I ..,;-.'//' .."'4-r.~/ "'/~,..,!'..."I ,1,/ ~ /.f /"~" '//// .// f/+" ~B
I:/f ~ / / ,J' , ... 1-" ~ / .... j / / >- ,I.. /.,'/ ;' ~ ! '" ~, ..,.
~..I/'~///~ / /' + .. + - //1 "/~. /.F r.fl'./?-.. ~ ~ ,/~ /..t / .,: .,.,.r Ii /~....: ~., /,/',~~'''''...' \ / I =.
" !I.' c.' ./" /,./ /',' /",' ././ ~/,/ ,
'd/ J_,f,r" ~: f"" I' "/...,fc ,~/~I' 4'-;- f' f ,,1/ r ~ / 4 ,o~ / ,/ 'II' i/ /'" =
:: ~v If ",,,.", ~ ~ /r t' / '" "'/ /" ~<t",;E +"'/'~ ..... / /' .. ,,'" f ~" "f ;f.) J'~-' .../ ~-I/ 9/ f__ u.u.i
!:..I-+_/l""/-, <</"/{/ ,/,,/r/~~ ":I'/~./,~"""~ //.,f,>^'r/.t' ,/ '-',
"/"1./, /', // /,' ^' " .' / . :;/ /, " /".,~
~1..tfJl,' '" 40-./ ~/-? . / ." / " -9 "r/ /' J~ -;, . ,.. "</, ~."i". >., ( "
~ I / ,<</,,'/ .,',' /:/ c'// /' 1/,.. "~,;,,g _ I ~_>_
... 1',/'1' /,,",,'4,.(./ S '/""1 \
n- j:1...;~~ J'- r /'./ #"/tf_.f<! ~ ~ I)'" J I
_::_ , ......~PlIiIl!,.,Il/IIQRam.... " ,"
::'- '; Ram-a.
U\ I
:: 'i\,
D :/ ~
. "
~ /i
~ ji
D~1/
-, :
n//
=,
t
!
~
~
~---
~
~
j
!
t
..U
....#..~!'
,,#/ ----1
#~ /
#~~//
~.... /'
*,#
..#~ft
#..~/
#~~/
if"".,"
#~,~y
..#~~.'
,;;""'-',<\
.~.. '" /'~\
",,~ "'" '. \~\</
,", "",.> i'~\.
/ '".------.1 <.\
#~
~/......,,~,
~< '.
~.
~
~
~
ii
"
i
ii
" , , , , ' . , D
~U-fl-l_'ff.llf.I-! i : ! ! ;;
11"'/1""""111".'1'.11'./1.'.11'.11'.
!
,
--f ------- ii
i
~
i ~
~"I-I/I=,i
!
, ~
i =
. !'./I'...fII..I'
~
j
~
~
~
'n.f~f"'rl_~!II!IIU_'fI=J.
, I, i' _
'---" ' / i-..-.-.... II
--;j--~~. \
'-\, -,-~~~!.
i------L__ . -L- __~_ _
;-i
-----i .~
--... ----I
'''-'-1 ..,~
, ..,,#
I ,,#
: ,,'
..,'
;'
..--...-..."..,\
,,,~
,..#
...j---,.... T' -- __... ,,#'
> "....,., I I : \.,\~,..
, i : i ! \,#
.> i , ____~_._____wm___._. j-- ___..m;-;\\~'
it~ . I , I i ,,\,
._-...~ ///~r-"'T.....L_j""""-i \11_11, i ",#
ii" ~II~, 11111".1\1- -tl,.,. ",#
-1Ii_U' III~
~
--.:..:::...::::---
'-...
.,............
',~~
i-
!
,.....
--... -..-; ...
.'c':-r
. i
~ -~r-'
REVISED
Exhibit "C"
-""I"
,',
f~~---\,:~
:=..:::..::1
!
-"1-- ",------i
i
I
1
I
-.__,__.1
N
A
Legend
~ III.....
- - SKIA UGA
'II'_II~
......,.
l',,:"',-P City Limits
The City of Bremerton does not warrant the
accuracy of this information or mapping, which
should not be relied upon without independent
verification of accuracy. The user assumes all
risks related to or arrising from the US9 of this
information or mapping,
Prepared By: Lindsey Sehmel
Printing Date: June 3, 2008
File: R:ICommunity DevelopmentlCommunity DevelopmentIGIS_ArchiveIRevised_StructureIBremerton _ CitylGrowth _AnnexISKIAISKIA MapsISKIA_N_Exh_ C.mxd
City of Bremerton
RESOLUTION NO. 3064
C~.
~.i""'!i'J>'.41i;
r~l('.J1'\
f..] 'If&.
~j ~
;]
71 (
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, accepting the proposal for annexation and
authorizing the circulation ofa petition for annexation,
geographically modifying the area proposed to be annexed by
adding approximately eighty (80) acres of property and by adding
a portion of Lake Flora Road to the proposed annexation area, and
further requiring the assumption of all of the City's existing
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City received a petition for annexation of
territory to the City Bremerton from Overton & Associates Holdings, LP, the Port ofBremerton,
McCormick Land Co., Alpine Evergreen Co., Inc., North Mason Holdings, LP, North Bay
Properties Holdings, LP, Coulter Creek Holdings, LP, and Southwest Kitsap Holdings, LP
("Petitioners"); and
WHEREAS, the area proposed by the petitioners for annexation is described and
further depicted in the Petition for Annexation of Territory to City of Bremerton attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of one hundred percent (100%)
of the property according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned, which is
well in excess ofthe ten percent (10%) in value of the property required to initiate an annexation
into the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of not less than ten percent
(10%) of the acreage for which annexation is petitioned; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City also received a petition for annexation/request to join
annexation of approximately eighty (80) acres of property to the City of Bremerton from Paul
and Mary Schmidt ("Schmidt"), attached hereto as Exhibit B and further identified in the area
map also attached hereto as Exhibit B which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within an Urban Growth
Area (UGA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council must meet with the initiating parties not later than
60 days after filing the request for annexation to consider the petition and decide whether it will .
1) accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2) require the simultaneous
adoption of the comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and 3) require the
assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and
1
Annexation - SKIA South
10% Petition Resolution
WHEREAS, City Council has set June 16, 2008 as the date that it will meet with
the initiating parties to consider the petition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to geographically modify the area proposed
to be annexed by adding the Schmidt properties consisting of approximately eighty (80) acres as
described in Exhibit B and by adding that portion of Lake Flora Road to the proposed annexation
area as identified in Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, as modified herein, the area proposed for annexation is described in
Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive plan designation for the area proposed to be
annexed will not be adopted herein; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that it in the best interest of the City to accept the
proposed annexation as presented as geographically modified herein '.'lith the geographic
modification adding the Schmidt properties to the area proposed to be annexed, and further to
require the assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Petition for Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton
set forth in Exhibit A is hereby accepted as presented with geographic modification to the area
proposed to be annexed by the addition of approximately eighty (80) acres of property described
in Exhibit B, and by the addition of that portion of Lake Flora Road to the proposed annexation
area as identified in Exhibit C for a total area proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit C.
SECTION 2. The City Council shall require the assumption of all existing City
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
SECTION 3. The initiating parties shall be required to submit the appropriate
seventy-five percent (75%) annexation petition as required by law to proceed with the
annexation.
SECTION 4. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion ofthis Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _
,2008.
2
Annexation - SKIA South
10% Petition Resolution
WILL MAUPIN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Files\Current Active Files\SKIA \10% Annexation Petition Resolution - SKIA South Final.doc
3
Annexation - SKU South
10% Petition Resolution
EXHIBIT A
INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
'RECEIVED. (ITY COUNCIL OFFICE"
JATE l-/!2d)Oj;l
1-:t..e
April ~ 2008
I:.
City Council
City ofBremerton
345 61h St. Suite 600
Brenlcrton, VIA 98337
APF~ (: 2 20lHt
Re: South Kitsap Industrial Annexation
\1 ;:
Deal' City Council members,
VIe the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than] 0% ofthe value of property,
according to the assessed valuation records for general taxation purposes of the Assessor
of Kitsap County, of the follo\:>,i}ng described real property situated in Kitsap Count)',
Washington, respectfully file this Notice ofIntention to Commen,-c Annexation
Proceedings (''Notice'') requesting that said real property be annexed to the City of
Bremerton, Washington and we respectfully state as follows:
1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as per the
legal description attached hefeto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this Notice.
2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached hereto
as EXFIlBIT B and is made a part of this Notice.
3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Bremerton and is in Kitsap
Couni}', and is within an Urban Growth Area.
4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council of the City of
Bremel'ton entertain this Notice and fix a date for a meeting with the initiating parties
within 60 days Qfthe filing of this Notice as per RCVI 35.15.125. The undersigned
Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council determine at said meeting whether it
will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; w!tether itwill
require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan; and whether it will require
the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be
annexed.
Overton & Associates Holdings, LP
Tax Parcel No.
222301-1-004-1008; -1-005-1007; -1-006-1006; -1-007-1005; -1-008-1004; -1-009-1003;
-1 -01 0-1000.
222301-2-017-1001;-2-021-1005
222301-3-004-1004; -3-005-1003; -3-006-1002; -3-007-1001; -3-008-1000; -3-009-1009;
-3-010-1006.
232301-3-013-10 ; -3-014-1001;-3-016-1009
B : Da E. verton, Managing Partner
Overton & Associates Holdings, LLC (General Partner)
Port of Bremerton
Tax Parcel No.
112301-3-001-1000
1223 1-2-007-1005,-2-008-1004,-2-009-1003
LL---
By: Ceryl Kincer, President
Port of Bremerton, Board of Commissioners
McConnick Land Co
Tax Parcel No.
122301-3-001-1009
132301-3-010-1007;-3-011-1006
132301-4-023-1000;-4-024-1009
232301-1-006-1005;-1-007-1 004;-1-008-1 003;-1-009-1002;-1-010- 1009;-1-011-1008;-1-
012-1007;-1-013-1006
232301-4-001-1 004; -4-002-1003; -4-003 -1002; -4-004-1001
242301-1-010- 008
242301-2-01 ;-2 011-1005;-2-012-1 004;-2-013-1 003;-2-016-1000;-2-017-1009
Alpine Evergreen Co., Inc.
Tax Parcel No.
South half of 122301-1-003-1001
232301-2-001-1008
--~J4 ~:J
By: Rod Reid, President
North Mason Holdings. LP
Tax Parcel No.
222301-4-002-1004;-4-008-1008
By. Davi '. Ovelton, Managing Partner
North Mason Holdings, LLC (General Pmincr)
\
By: Davi '. Overton, Managing IJartner
Coulter Creek, LLC (General Pmtnel')
Southwest Kitsap Holdings, LP
Tax Parcel No.
222301-4-005-1001
~-\
By: avid.Jo Overton, Managing Partner
Southwest Kitsap, LLC (General Partner)
E)(t..!! 8 H' A
LEGf.U. DESCRIPTiON
Or;; TERR~TORY PR:OPOSED FOR ANNEXf\TI.ON
TO THE: Cr:TY OF BREMt~RTO!\f
City of13rc'mcrton will prepare the legal description for the external SKIA nnnexatiol1 botlndar)'.
\o~
...~\~
\'~~.
1 <d.)/o
$O~
~l\\~
~ \) t\.
:& \' ~\t'
\?\t'
O?Y~
~\O~ ~
-c?-.\\?
\)~S
V~O f'V
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
South Kitsa Industrial Annexation
r-rn '-rT~~'Ti-' - ~"'~-f--=rWl'~i::t'.==----=V;{~~:;;~:;::'~--::"~ :;>'-,<;-~-- II
"ltj1t!j~_~t" rJT I IllSif:~~2 -,>t/ -,",:.,,~:-~#
-- --'f~J{~lk~CoJtff~f~~~-_~;5;t -------- -~---.-+- -.~
f-- ~-~::~t}~d]f{~;;1;;?'~.2C--I_-J. 17 :<5?
~",.CJ~~1,~~~-~~'~i~~~IL_rf1-___~------_1 /<$: ::atA~~",- -~:
1:~::;------1t5 ,.: "~ J~I=':.j1 I 1 [ 1 ,r"'- /'.~.'sJ.,. "f%~-
~. ~r~f~.j ,-~---I--:i-~:(~l~21II!!~li
'~~rt~' '='::---:=1- ~---L"" --.~ '~'~/r-Jr-- -- --.- .'!~ /;~~\~~, ';'~:;;<\;\'1\' '1~~: ::.13iL
'~-:-T,-=-..,::. ---1 I . ..' jlfu I 'IY7-0-J' ~O-;.: ':\.... . ,-~ -::.: ~)iJ~
~ '. ~~ l?""""'" ."' . I' 0'4 -. ';;-"-'\;>"E"."".~-(,
'-" >". - -.;::.,:,,- ,j! ....... / .~ </\ ,~;., i'~' @/.T
,..:L.~' ;:;:lL.-. .- "..:..........._- '1:" . .. . .' . ;/)/ I, ~'\, ~ -...j . / .', -
$:-'--J ..,0' !" '~-_.' .'/. I--\.\. . I. I .
, -"-- ,.,P , . ~---.;""& . I' ../ ,-; . '-'.::. --/-- -_1'_._-4- x.~
~-r- J{" '1/" ''''';0'' // - ---'I - :-'4 -
-" "'-~ ," . /1-"'''- / /' -- . '-.. .. "'''\,,,,,, _
j:jJ-- I )' . .1(/~1? 5 I .. '-Lki~
~/,. _I /j:'~::;":f---O~~l-"~!/:,:./t(<:.... :.."./',6..,' 2. Z~T-~~~.;~=
/i'! ... ......:.......(:../......:.:.,..:,-..... .......... .': '.. .:. "_LI~'" .L.L....L-~,T'.,.,~__I
'. . ...'..... ..r.'"......".... ...... ,. ......., lr'.~
'!:---"'-r;1<~+--- ~:,:..:.~--:-t;\...~L::::,::~~:~:i~-~~.~~.. ..': .\ 7C:~~ II:~~~
"" ,// 1 11/;/'/'. . .... .... . ...... ./I-=WifT~ -
!/tJ~__ ..-..------" --;::?Y',,'. '.' :.:' t.' : /;,/"j-lJ- -j:I:r,,~rT*'
/,' I .;: ..... r.. ...j L-l"'::rdl/.:::LL
.::/' __..1.----1~-,,--'/.JI . ~ --. .. '. 145'..5 . ..._- =t. =$=-j=tl:'::":r~L,
~ .C': .;:./ >.-, ), ..j' :: . , . .'" ' -:"'J":1. --. '- ...~--~-r:J! h.C
/< ""'" "'0::/ \" ': . '], .--:-',' 1'7.3'--' ",- 1
5t~~~>'s . \ '..<../ ... .7i:'~-Ff~~ ~:
: ;--(~~:'H-;.......>/~;- ..._-L..........i'~~~..~~J3..+~~. ~::,J:-'~
k:< <<~, . .0/- 12 '''. r.....~. 1 .. ,39, ,)4. I 52 f'" .' " "I" ~ __..I
l // ~.. ". ~j ~6<~,/</::1~)f :. ':." .'.': :.12 q4.0.i.~15:-5-:. :~. ~:---..:::.,,::, .5=11' .=::':~.-r--.f:::::~~-::!<
.. .. "'". ~....,.,... 43"" c. .,. .... " ,..... . I -
~.......'19f:;:~~<141"3iS-' ~6;1'?~=,1?~ i '.-1 '---
,'~ ... i":~~.:<I:~~;' eM::,' : '~~;:f ~~.;:... :.!57ci -=-~_~-.- --1
.....--.... ,,-.~jl.--- ---r-- I I ~-r--r"-~ ~~ (" L_".__.J,_,_~ ~---t-~~J=:~-- .. ~_. .. /l'l~/ ~0
! II -.---- -'-'- ." ,,' -
, ....J .-. -.~L ....., -- .,'-~.... I
Numbers on parcels correspond to SKIA ownership spreadsheet attached
SKIA Ownership Spreadsheet
lMap Numoor T3X paroR1 no. U... -
T.2xpayar A'Cn!iS Ta""bIo AV PubllcOwMd NQIlProflt - Mark.IVal".
1 PORT OF BREMERTON 112301-3-001-1000 390- Misc, manf. 559,92 [) Y N 16,097,480
2 ALPINE EVERGREEN INC South haff of 122301-1-003-1001 880- Forest land 76,70 9,580 N N 0
3 PORT OF BREMERTON 122301-2-007-1005 910- llndeveloped land 2,64 0 Y N 42,370
4 PORT OF BREMERTON 122301-2-008-1004 910- Undeveloped land 1.40 0 Y N 38,390
5 PORT OF BREMERTON 122301-2-009-1003 430- Aircraft transoort 1090.00 0 Y N 42,304,090
6 MCCORMICK LAND CO 122301-3-00101009 880- Forest land 78,07 10,000 N N 0
7 MCCORMICK LAND CO 132301-3-010-1007 880- Forest land 20.00 2660 N N 0
8 MCCORMICK LAND CO 132301-3-011-1006 880- Forest land 20.00 2,660 N N 0
9 MCCORMICK LAND CO 132301-4--023-1000 860- Forest land 20.00 2,660 N N 0
10 MCCORMICK LAND CO 132301-4-024-1009 8BO- forest land 20.00 2,550 N N 0
11 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-004-1000. 860- Forest land 19.17 2,550 N N 0
12 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1.005-1007 880- Forest land 27.26 3630 N N 0
13 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-00B-10a6 880- Forest land 28.21 3750 N N 0
14 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-007-1005 880- Forest land 29.53 3930 N N 0
15 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-008-1004 88D- Forestland 22.40 2,980 N N 0
16 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-009-1003 880- Forest land 22.21 2,950 N N (}
17 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-1-010-1000 B80- Forest land 22.05 2580 N N 0
is OVERTON & ASSOC 222301.2-017.1001 910. Undevelooed land 1.49 64,900 N N 64,900
19 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-2-021-1005 880- Forest land 52.86 5,340 N N 0
20 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-3-004-1 004- 880- Forest land 20.00 234-0 N N 0
21 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-3-005-1 003 880- Forest land 20.00 2030 N N 0
22 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-3-006-1002 880- Forest land 20.00 2,340 N N 0
23 OVERTON & ASSOC 22.2301-3-007-1001 880- Forest land 20.00 2,190 N N 0
24 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-3-008-1000 88D- Forest land 20.00 2090 N N 0
25 OVER.ON & ASSOC 222301-3-009-1009 880- Forestland 20.00 1,820 N N 0
26 OVERTON & ASSOC 222301-3--D10-1006 880- Forest land 51.98 6,630 N N 0
27 NORTH MASON LP 222301~OO2.1004 880- Forest land 20.00 1.980 N N 0
28 NORTH BAY PROPERTIES LP 222301-4-003-1003 8aO- Forest land 20.00 2,660 N N 0
29 COULTER CREEK LP 22230i-4--D04-1002 880- Forest land 19.95 2,650 N N 0
30 SOUTHWEST KITSAP LP 222301-4--005-1001 880- Forest land 18.76 2,500 N N 0
31 CaUL TER CREEK LP 222301-4--006-1000 880- Forest land 20.00 2.660 N N 0
32 SOUTHWEST KITSAP lP 222301~O07-1009 880- Forest land 20.00 2650 N N 0
33 NORTH MASON LP 222301~OO8-1008 880- Forest land 20,00 2,620 N N 0
34 NORTH BAY PROPERTIES LP 222301-4-009-1007 880- Forest land 20.00 2,650 N N 0
35 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1-~1005 880- Forest land 20.00 2,660 N N 0
36 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1-007-1004 880- Forestland 20.00 2,620 N N 0
37 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1-008-1003 380- Forest land 20.00 2,650 N N 0
36 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1-009-1002 880- Forest land 20.00 2,530 N N 0
39 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1.010-1009 380- Forest land 2G.00 2,650 N N 0
40 MCCORMICK LAND CO 23230H-011-1008 880- Forest land 20.00 2,600 N N 0
41 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1-()12-1007 880- Forest land 20.00 2,650 N N 0
42 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-1.013-1006 880- Forest land 20.00 2650 N N 0
43 ALPINE EVERGREEN INC 232301-2-001-1008 880- Forest land 150.18 19,710 N N 0
44 OVERTON & ASSOC 232301-3-()13-1002 880- Forest land 18.84 2,510 N N 0
45 OVERTON & ASSOC 232301-3-014-1001 880- Forest land 19.79 2,050 N N 0
4& OVERTON & ASSOC North portion of 232301-3-016-1009 880- Forest land 19.11 1,960 N N 0
47 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-4-00HOO4 880- Forest land 32.50 4,270 N N 0
48 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-4-002-1003 880- Forest land 19.41 0 Y N 0
49 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-4-()Q3-1002 880- Forest land 20.00 2,620 N N 0
50 MCCORMICK LAND CO 232301-4-004-1001 880- Forest land 20.92 2.750 N N 0
51 MCCORMICK lAND CO 242301-1-D10-1008 880- Forest land 37.09 0 y N 0
52 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2:-()10-1D06 880- Forest land 20.00 2.250 N N 0
53 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2-011-1005 880- Forest land 38. 58 5,120 N N 0
54 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2-()12.1004. 881). Forest land 20.00 2,660 N N I)
55 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2-013-1003 880- Forest land 20.00 2,650 N N 0
56 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2-{J16-1000 880- Forest land 20.00 2.220 N N 0
57 MCCORMICK LAND CO 242301-2-017-1009 880- Forest land 26.S!;! 0 y N 0
T alaI acres: 3087.61 234,470 58.547,230
~B,kj) rvu a me. C 'j) (i <rcVYle;..i
3 If 15 b [:t- >-5Ltv.d~ \S .iv~ ()ty)
. "'J?h.fA1/wJ (nL) Lo)it q 9 .3 3 '7 -I !?13
EXHIBIT B
"RECElVED, ClrY COUNCIL OFFlCE'~
JATE _ qj'J'J./D 8 _
(i dr (} lffiA'l e.J. 'fh.1-1'J1QgJW,
'. CUR. Cl..u. ;l/:ce..-.. C'l.OTUk.{) 0 Q F p/LaV{~~'-'a t:i,.. "
at, f""1 fl!-(j2-O /cu cP J,,-_~"'----" J-,-t--x_~ J}y O-(,L---'V'-d.~ (9-.1 .~..
.> -- ()
~b-v..;L/L f:\1-tob-lJ ~7'LoLUA7_.hL'a.fl. ~'- ~~
1.; /5 .1?<Jcy 1"Ja,''-L v-k: s --'[.~,Te.eJ..._., 07L 2' L--. a:tt6e.J201.
{} rJ.-l! 'tf----. tv (j~L-~-L o~L..
Lv <t ~ '-1~ J:U~-j'L ~ /"t L (l ~L1j (} /YV-~ a
o ~ '~: I db
'7b6 ~~ ifJ/-vOr cr'~' D 4A--L-- -.F
7\ 6~.<.~' '
, I
l " ~~~~~~~I-
tl/'. {~c0ve-CL '--rJ" Sll'.JL4'L ~ D fu erb IG
C. (1 . ~/VtCcr 1>-,,- b7rn ,,-.~
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2008
City of Bremerton
City Attorney's Office
;~~~? ---
AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO:
Name paul A. and Marv E. schmidt
Addressp .0. Box 2298
City, State, Zip Bremerton, WA
98310
Statutory Warranty Deed
LAND TITLE COMPANY OF KITSAP COUNTY
E-128967 Escrow No.S-12731-CA
11UEc;~()1l AUTHORITY PROVIDED UNDER KITSAP SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO.
96-2-02129-8, JOHN S. MCDONALD, RECEIVER
for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION
in hand paid, conveys and warrants to PAUL A. SCHMIDT AND MARY E. SCHMIDT, husband and
wife.
the following described real estate, situated in the County of Kits ap
, State of Washington:
complete Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on page 2.
Abbreviated 11egal Description:
Quarter: NE,SW & NW,SE Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 1 West
Tax Account No.: 132301-3-003-1006, 132301-3-004-1005, 132301-3-005-1004,
132301-3-006-1003, 132301-3-007-1002, 132301-3-008-1001, 132301-3-009-1000,
13 23 01- 4 _ 011-10 04, 132301-4- 012 -1003, 132301- 3 - 013 -1002, 132301- 4 - 014 -100 1,
132301-40015-1000, 132301-4-016-1009, 132301-4-017-1008, 132301-4-018-1007
Dated:
jiji~N"s ':"M'CDONALD'," RECE'ivER' 'PURSUANT' '1'0" ... ............... ...... ...... .............. ........ .,. ..............
SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 96-2-02129-8
.. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. ............................................................. -- . . . .. .
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
This is to certify that on the date of before me personally
appeared JOHN S. MCDONALD, to me known to be the RECEIVER, PURSUANT TO KITSAP
SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 96-2-02129-8 and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said RECEIVER for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that HE WAS authorized to
execute the said instrument on behal~ of said partnership.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Residing at:
My Appointment expires:
II~tll ~~~~rd~~~~~~~-SKIA South
Ii"!
Exhibit "B"
r" f
.-
.. I ...... ~;~:
.~.,'~, . ..<.' ..' ':.' i'H..
...... ..........: ........ j.<: ~7
>.':~\"o: "',: .. !;j^/J:(/::~'!:" :>, ,.
(. "~~~0;~~:.!:~::
1~1)":/H<" H,,/i ~:;: . .>:;lZ. .........1,,:'
Il>,": .i;/ "'i.' ....-'-
ii' .....:i: ...........",,'./~:,;:: >;j':: ":\,:.1/,:.",' ';; ~'..: .:.H.
i:" . . ..,.. '.., :.:.........)! ""'.i'."" .<';;>:
:.\;',.."t;;:) /} :.'..';:..",. :....: . .'.',"" ."
../i;>;';!;;'!';": .'. " .........' .......
.<.{: ........:. ;;/(:/.i} ...:.....:.:. .......... ......,....... 1: . ..........
!;". '''> .....:, ........ .......... '.' .... ............
i.:/,)} :.......... .....,. '.';. I; .... ,-
.... '., ......//.................:.. . ,...........'/. ;....:.'
: '//',.::}: . ..' : ..'. .... ;,::.
:.:</( .,'.:: "u ....:. .... .:..... ':'. . .;. .' ..... ;..~.(;. ,'.'
~7 .. '. ..:...... .... ....: ...:..;...:..:.... in).:
j, !.r"'- II .......... ........: .......
"._,.....\ c,:....< ';;. ,,':';
/...',' '.; ..< . '\'.J.;'.'; .. ..:...~:_
~.;. ......C\,. ......>> . .... ....... .........:..
.,,,,#~:< '.::.::. .....:.::. i.:: ..:.,'.. /..
~;/i:' ........ .,,: '>>'. .....
~~/H' ...:...... ....... ;.:. ". ,.;" "/." ....'...; ...... .. .:.
~>>';; . :'. ....... ,:,,)"i: :" . .... ..' .......... ',,).>:,.:',..<.. ;.i. .
'~~';i b ';',:,"<,.?>.. ........ '.,'.' ..... .:.. ....... ......
~,,> . ..... ." ...... . ." ..>,.... .,/.:i. ........ .... ....< <i'
./I~ ........./........... ....\. .... ....., ......
::..' . /'./.,..1...... ..' .' ...... ,>'J .... /:'>i.:.:7;"~.i
.,>~:.,.. ;..:../......1 ... :..,' ..... ')L;~>...>)J
~:-..',.." ..' >c:;. ,.i ..'<:, ;-:.:. ,." .'
''-.: <:.'
.,f:'-"~v .,.' :.,. ....... i :'.> .,)
i:~<~'-' ". \.:. ....'\ ':":".>. 'i.', . ..,,;'/
t~~~:: " ..... .'~<. 1)1' ..... . .:.;.:>:; ....>..,;;..~,,:J."j...;.
f\)>~. !'.. ....... .......' i<.' ~';L\;:...'> /';' I.t>..;~
;:{ I'- r- ..... >.. ..:........;.; ....... ....../).i.)...'
. ......n . ....... .....'[.: ........ ..........;~:;;;. !;ix/ .,;..................>~,'.~v
.';:. :.).1. ..... .. ..' ... '" ~:. .lil__Z2~"'<"
..\..... ..,: "',' i...... ...... .'::' :.: .:.... .",.
...... r< : '., ..... .:.... ,.' . i.. . ....... .. ,1\" .,.....,..
.... :.<'; ....... > ;\,.;
~;3!
, . \i~
,-., m
'"
;/
N
A
Legend
9MUI_J..
'III_II' SKIA UGA
l.M:O:~l<.G~::"
ji"."J City Limits
The City Of Bremerton does not wfiuanlll1e
accuracy Of 11",IS Infom,aHon or mapplng, which
stlOuld not be relied upon withoul independent
verification of accuracy The user assumes al!
risl-..S related lO or arrislng from the use of thiS
information or mapping.
Prepared By. Lindsey Sehmel
Prinllng Dale: June 3. 2008
File: RICommllnily Develop"'enl\C ommunily OavelopmenllGI S_Archi velRevised_ Slruclure\Bremerton _ CilylGrowlh_AnnexlS KIAISKIA MapslSKIA _ S _ Exh_. 8. mxd
City of Bremenon
_11 ;- ~~~a ob~;;::~~~~~~':e~~t~~~ EXh;~::;:~:'/, I
. . Geographically Modified to Incorporate:;,'";~;;/:<~;:~:;'~
,. .'. Schmidt Request ~~d~/PO~i~.~.o.f~a~e~lo~a RO~d ~:i;S;Ql
D.... ,f!I<ff' . " .' I ./.' ; "/,' ." " ,,' .' "", .' / ' / .,~ ,/ A I-~.JJ~
. 'I"'" ,-I' ^,/ ,. ,~ .;f ,. , './ ' ,/ \ -
,.-i> ,?,,/' r___'?J <'~ if' l"~F,r "rl /" ~
~', / _ />-/~,,/,,:/ :/ /.~i" / '>"~./.~ ;'~~ /: <.../ -:..< ,J .' /' ~ / \'
:'/1,' / ~ /' . ",,' ,,'/ / ,// ',/ T ' /'j./ //', / i!!!1".. ,,' <'"
....If' / ~/" /r ~<c /~' ,;.r, /,;r.",,.,...# ,~f. /..'"/'"...''' {'4..."" .( '\ \ \" < "
. ". ~ ~/ .... >" I' '- -d ./",; /' '" --" f /.. / .r -" .. '", \ \\,
. " ./ " / /' /./ /'''' " --' //' '.' --r;~ ",,, '/
:t 1,./ /",' /.//1'<""/,// I '/"~' , j
, , " /," I / /"" 1
y/" \. "r~~~~~i- ·
,'\, \. " Ii
\~ '\ "
,~",>\, - LJ
,
I
:!:
Legend
REVISED
N
A
_1II1aL
'III_II' SKIA UGA
,...1..
t{;~.j City Limits
The City of Bremerton does not warrant the
accuracy of this information or mapping, which
should not be relied upon without independent
verification of accuracy. The user assumes all
risks related to or arrising from the use of this
information or mapping.
CITY OF BREMERTON
Follow-Up Information/Updates
SKIA Area Annexation Financial Impacts Assessment
f'~. lor L
H~ by ftJ~ftJlf7e,
rXVlQ..~ ~+.
City Council was previously provided a "Financial Assessment - SKIA Area Annexation report" which described three
growth scenarios and described estimated direct financial impacts under that scenario's assumptions if annexation
occurs. The 20 year period analyzed covers 2009 through 2028. Staff presented and summarized this information
to the City Council at the regularly scheduled June 11 th study session. It was requested at that time that follow up
information be provided on the impacts associated with:
- Adding Costs for a Sub Area Planning Process
- Adding Some Additional Cost for Administrative/Community Development Staff Support
1) All Scenarios - Added $200,000 in 2009 as a General Fund expense item for a Sub Area Planning Process. The
estimated cost includes money for plan preparation, an environmental impact review, and an economic feasibility
analysis.
2) Assumed additional General Fund expense equivalent to the amount necessary to staff a full time Building
Development Specialist II position ($78,621 in 2008 dollars) plus an additional $25,000 per year (in 2008 dollars) for
related expenses. It should be noted that the original analysis did not include these kinds of costs because there are
also various permit and inspection fee revenues etc which are expected (in large part) to cover the costs of such
expenditures that would also need to be shown. Staff concluded that including the gross revenues and expenditures
in the analysis - when they offset one another and affect the General Fund only - did not seem necessary to the
decision process. However, recognizing that not all costs are fully recovered from such fees and permits and based
on City Council's specific request - this follow-up analysis introduces some additional costs accordingly and continues
to ignore related fees and permit revenues for such work. The annual labor costs as described plus expenses are
allocated as follows under the three scenarios in this follow-up analysis:
Scenario A ("Low Growth") - No allocation of additional annual costs for Administrative/Community Development staff
support were added as the growth assumed in this scenario does not warrant such an addition. .
Scenario B ("Hiqh Growth") - 25% allocation of additional annual costs for Administrative/Community Development
staff support and associated expenses were added based on the level of growth assumed in this scenario.
Escalated by 3% in each year thereafter.
Scenario C ("SKIA Sub Area Plan") - 50% allocation of additional annual costs for Administrative/Community
Development staff support and associated expenses were added based on the level of growth assumed in this
scenario. Escalated by 3% in each year thereafter.
The tables and information on the next page summarize the results of adding these additional costs into the financial
projections for each scenario and compares those results to the original analysis data.
p,. ?-crt- 2
Scenario A - "Low Growth" Original Analysis Follow-Up Analysis
Average Annual Average Annual
Summary Receipts/Expenditures - Average Annual Amounts 2009 - 2028 2009 - 2028
J~it~I~R~ceiptSt;f:'~;t_~~i!(~~~~:'F~;:~iz~~t~:~,;~::~~~:~:~"~,J'~~,~~::~~~jJ~:~~;>~~j2!;Tl: (~.5't~;~':j X$i~4t:{i;'i~",~!Z,f::t;~36~;:26M ':'$F~;{(;:'~~~~1ii;:; :"ii:ri.36~;26~~
Total Ex enditures 310,873 320,873
- - -- 'n -- - , $ - - - $ -'
NET AVERAGE ANNUAL RECEIPTS 53,388 43,388
J - --.. - - - -- - - -- - -- -- l -- --
p
-Annual Average Net Annual Receipts of $43,388 vs. $53,388 in Original Analysis
-General Fund Expends More than Received in the First Three Years Due to Projected Payments to Kitsap County
(Revenue Sharing Agreement). Negative Amount in First Year is Higher with the Follow-up Cost Addition. but the
Conclusion is Unchanged.
-Utility Systems and General Fund (After First Three Years) Are Consistently in a Net Annual Positive Position
Throughout the 20-Year Period Forecasted. Conclusion Does Not Change with the Addition of These Follow-up Costs.
-Ending Cumulative Financial Impact for the City in this Low Growth Scenario is a Positive $867,766 vs. $1,067,766 in
the Original Analysis.
Scenario 8 - "High Growth" Original Analysis Follow-Up Analysis
Average Annual Average Annual
Summary Receipts/Expenditures - Average Annual Amounts 2009 - 2028 2009 - 2028
:r:otal~;Re~ei pts~il~~:,' ~ ~~~~:~~,t~~~~~,:1>~~\~0~~,'~~tr~~~~~:;.~;i~~[;..;;;'f:' ~;~":~) ::j~~i::~fj~? ~~':,;7::::.J'.).;;~:;\ ~~;'.~;~ ~~$)';7~kf.t;,:,;~!':t~~~.~t;7:94~1'28:', ~$_c';;; :~l:~::l$:~: ::,[:~1[,:'7.94;~28j
Total Expenditures 1,470,351 1,515,155
, -- ANNUAL -- - -- $ -- -- - - - 323,778 --$ --- - -- ,- - -- - 278,973
NET AVERAGE RECEIPTS
r
" - -- -' -- -- --- - --
-Annual Average Net Annual Receipts of $278,973 vs. $323,778 in Original Analysis
-General Fund Expends More than Received in the First Two Years Due to Projected Payments to Kitsap County
(Revenue Sharing Agreement). Negative Amount was Confined to the First Year Only in the Original Impact Analysis.
-General Fund (After First Two Years) Is Consistently in a Net Annual Positive Position Throughout the 20-Year Period
Forecasted - Positive Cumulative Impact of $5,302,236 vs. $6,198,320 in Original Analysis
-Utility Systems Also Generally Experience Net Annual Positive Impacts With the Exception of the Years 2014 and
2020. Which Have Significant Capital Expenditures - Positive Cumulative Impact of $277,232 (No Change)
-Ending Cumulative Financial Impact for the Overall City in this High Growth Scenario is a Positive $5,579,468 vs.
6,475,552 in the Original Analysis.
Scenario C - "SKIA Sub Area Plan"
Original Analysis
Average Annual
2009 - 2028
~$1,:.:f;;{-f,,~i;;:~.\(, 5~91~1';38l,' ;:$'\(:,
. 5,542,201
Follow-Up Analysis
Average Annual
2009 - 2028
,:;;;'~,~;'5;911';387,;:
5,621,810
Summa Receipts/Expenditures - Average Annual Amounts
~ota",;~e~eiptS:,:I~<~~)~:'.:~~..1'f~~,',:~i;;-~~\4 i~v~~ ~~;~;;~~::~?;,;'r~i~fX?ii~t.~~
Total Expenditures
-Annual Average Net Annual Receipts of $289,577 vs. $369,186 in Original Analysis
-General Fund Is Consistently in a Net Annual Positive Position Throughout the 20-Year Period Forecasted With
Exception of the First Year Due to the Additional One Time Expenditure Item of the Sub Area Planning Costs and 2016
and 2017 - Which Shows Drawdown of Bond Proceeds Receipted in During 2015 - Positive Cumulative Impact of
58.868.041 vs. 510.460.209 in the Oriqinal Analvsis.
-Utility Systems Experience a Mixture of Net Annual Positive and Negative Impacts . Due to Greater Capital
Expenditures Over a Longer Period of Time - Negative Cumulative Impact of $3,076,496 (No Change)
-Ending Cumulative Financial Impact for the Overall City in this EXTREMELY HIGH Growth Scenario is a Positive
$5,791,545 vs. $7,383,713 in the Original Analysis
Page 1 of 1
From: Laura Lyon
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:14 AM
To: 'Will Maupin'; Phil Williams; Andrea Spencer
Cc: City Council
Subject: RE: SKIA Annexation Analysis
Will,
We will do (have done for the most part) the follow-up work requested by City Council and we will try to make sure
to address your key points/observations in the course of the presentation. As to item 5. in your list, I will let Phil
answer that one directly as I do not personally know the answer to that. I did want to let you know that we (staff)
did originally discuss adding costs for the administrative and particularly DCD staff time to manage the permitting,
plan review, etc. but did not put it in the analysis because we would also collect fees for such services which are
designed to cover those costs (for the most part) and it really did not seem to serve much purpose to have both
items that essentially net to zero and impact only the same fund (Gen Fund) added into the analysis - so we left
both sides of the picture out. However, recognizing that the fees do not cover absolutely everything we will be
running a revision in response to Council's request - with some additional labor and expense for this kind of
additional staff support - with no offsetting revenues for permit and building inspection fees etc. - as a
placeholder for the costs that would be incurred and not adequately recovered by the various fees imposed. Just
wanted to let you know that we had not just ignored this matter.
Laura S. Lyon, CPA
Director of F:inancial Services
City of Bremerton
(360) 473-5722
From: Will Maupin [mailto:WiII.Maupin@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 20084:41 PM
To: Laura Lyon; Phil Williams; Andrea Spencer
Cc: City Council
Subject: SKIA Annexation Analysis
Laura & Phil,
After thinking about the analysis and reading the article in the paper this morning, I have few comments:
1. It seems to me that we are trying to figure out the difference to us financially between annexing and not
annexing SKIA.
2. I also think whatever net positive financial result we have will be seen as a loss to the county (and probably
Port Orchard).
3. As we discussed last night, I think we should add an expense item for the additional planning and
administrative time would be caused by the annexation.
4. We should point out that the utility tax and the PILOT is something that the county would not get if they
were providing the service.
5. For water, I assume that we would put in the additional infrastructure to accommodate growth whether or
not we annex the area.
6. Our water receipts would actually go down if we annex the area.
Will
6/13/2008
Page 1 of 1
From: Mike Shepherd [mike.shepherdlikestrees@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Adam Brockus; Brad Gehring; Carol Arends; Cecil McConnell; Dianne Robinson; Nick Wofford; Roy
Runyon; Will Maupin
Subject: Re: FW: SKIA Annexation Analysis
I believe a key difference for me in the discussion is the subarea planning process.
The county approach is to require a master plan by the developers at their cost in advance of any
development, whereas if annexed it appears we would do the necessary planning out of general funds,
then use the increased revenue to repay the general fund.
In my mind I believe it would reduce the concerns of the other parties because the actual revenues for
the first few years would actually be offset by the costs of preparing plans and permits. Thus the real
difference is about organizational capacity to do the work of serving an approved urbanizing area..
6/13/2008
Page 1 of 1
From: Andrea Spencer
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11 :02 AM
To: 'Mike Shepherd'
Cc: City Council; Roger Lubovich
Subject: RE: SKIA sub area plan
Mike-
You raise a good question. The SKIA Sub Area Plan is a County adopted document and does 'not run with the
land' - if annexed to Bremerton the document would not transfer automatically. If the Council desired to adopt the
County's plan, an ordinance would need to be drafted and adopted to enact the SKIA Sub Area Plan for
Bremerton.
Andrea
From: Mike Shepherd [mailto:mike.shepherdlikestrees@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:38 AM
To: Andrea Spencer
Cc: City Council
Subject: SKIA sub area plan
I have reviewed the existing SKlA sub area plan and find it is probably just fine for that area. The
County planning commission and County Commissioners put in a lot of work on the plan and it seems
pretty comprehensive for what it is designed to be which is a industrial area in a rural part of the county
with a considerable
amount of wildlife and habitat including critical areas.
My question is:
If annexed would the existing sub area plan move with the properties as written and continue to be the
development standard until the City writes its own new sub area plan?
thank you
6/1612008
"
, l) .I ,1; l,,)
(f) J ~ ~ !;);~-'~)t?y> 11 i: /,;) ~
@ tdf. ~ 3 ~jt<- rtJ_ ~ r~M~~(/D ~O- If:
/J~1f;t /JUf71'/J ~/4'5 ~ ~j} a.A?/tJ/. ~<s;
.; ",/,
:k) 1'- u./~J1?d/ ~ ;1, ~'1cJ) JI.A ~"5 v,"J*o/ w~" t:J/LL..
C7 Tr-- <t. /. .
jU)t-V v~ .b/.af io ~ e!J4T ~ $tJAuI\A.("04w~_
~yfr- rk-.//tikPso ~~-' ~i5ap~ i~
;~> . (5lbr ItJtJ y;i".... 5-ttr/ M..tVdrN tb.. 9't:' ?fC/Z> rr.{L./ t,~ (
~ l;;~ "'$. 'ri~ /lAA2Z~t JI. ~G-~J -AIL ~
7~ ~ S/A.~_/ ~ ~1t3 0
Rf>zyr ~
VA"'!! f)v~~
. Ji1/ aJe& f)vt,Ic,..
'. .
Pr:e~ G/t& foB bt
C11eK'f l ~\r Y\ceYf POrt--o~
PORT OF BREMERTON 6~"
DISCUSSIONS WITH DEVELOPERS'AND DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS
April 2 and 3, 2008
1.
Assessment of Potential.
R.t.~ -f-o :c1&n~ q.
Of\. f~e- 3
a. Location remains significant challenge.
. Real/perceived advantages of 1-5 corridor hard to overcome.
. Growth in industrial, warehousing is flowing south from Seattle along
1-5 - with Kent Valley filling, Fife, DuPont, Lacey are drawing
development, but also becoming more selective. Major beneficiary is
Centralia area, reinforced by its location between Seattle/Tacoma and
Portland. May be somewhat slowed by recent flooding. Frederickson in
east/central Pierce County is also an attractive option now, after 20 or so
years in waiting.
b. POB acreage represents "lifetimes" of land in lower tier market. Even in heart of
1-5 corridor, very few users take more than 100 acres on their own.
c. Second Tacoma Narrows Bridge represents major access improvement, but some
additional transportation investment still needed for direct site connection to'
limited access highway. Also existing local limited access highway is built to
planned capacity. We need to include drive times to/from 1-5 in materials.
Improved connections also make commuting out of Kitsap for employment
elsewhere easier.
d. Kitsap constrained in attracting major distributors ~ a large user of industrial
land - by having small local market. Number of genuine industrial users is
declining as result of larger economic trends.
e. Puget Sound region will continue to grow: PSRC projections reasonable
regardless of short-term economic conditions. Kitsap will become more attractive
as growth is pushed further south along 1-$ for both availability and land cost.
f. Because it was acquired with FAA funds for airport-related purposes, the vast
bulk of the Port's land may only be leased, not sold. This is a major impediment
to development, particularly with more competitive land readily available. Can
be somewhat ameliorated by longer term leases (not less than 75 years) and other
measures, per below.
g. Rail service is an underappreciated asset.
"
. ,.
-1-
h. Port investment in infrastructure (utilities and fiber bandwidth) could be key.
But see qualifications below regarding relatively greater importance of
entitlements and tying infrastructure investment to pace of actual development.
1. General consensus is that long-term future will be more promising. Patience is
counseled.
2. Development Concepts to Explore.
a. Defense-related campus. Generalinterest (both volunteered and in response to
questions). Leverages existing driver oflocal economy. Could reinforce military
presence and draw additional support activities to area, although PSNS is an
"end-user" of supplies and equipment. Development of shared facilities for
multiple tenants with suitable structural, technological and security systems may
be possible. Port should not self-perform but rely on developer(s) committed to
concept.
b. Airport-related development. General aviation is experiencing considerable
growth in the Puget Sound region. As Paine, SeaTac and Renton reach capacity,
there may be greater opportunity for more secondary fields. Bremerton National
is little-known, underutilized field. Follow up with promoters of concept at
Tacoma Narrows Airport.
c. Conventional industrial/distribution uses.
. Option up to 200 acres to developer for as long as five years, specific
siting subject to POB approval. Perhaps several sites of varying sizes
already identified within optioned tract. No monetary compensation, but
deliverables/milestones in terms of marketing; entitlements. Expect to pay
third-party costs (consultants). Require periodic reporting to sustain
option. .
. Retain major broker with approach similarto above (although developer
above also likely to retain broker).
d. Location of essential public services/institutions (e.g., corrections).
e. SEED/"green" development/"green" infrastructure. Interesting, likeable
concepts, but need to be validated in the marketplace before substantial
investments should be made. Should be among concepts tested through
marketing. End-uses should be produced by developers, not POB. Sustainable
(green) infrastructure may be an attractive, distinguishing attribute but should
follow tenant commitment(s) not bet on or be considered lures for tenants,
particularly with less competitive location. Study, cost out, even plan for
sustainable infrastructure options, but actually construct only after tenants
commit.
-2-
'"
3. General Recommendations.
a. Pursue entitlements and planning; : ...
. Entitlements more valuable than infrastructure, although infrastructure
planning will likely be a feature of entitlement process. (Entitlements are
an "if'; infrastructure is a "when."). Would be concurrent with and
inform planning. Examples would be updating critical area
assessment/constraints; SEP A compliance.
. Plan for phased development, identify area(s) as initial priorities,
including specific sites of varying sizes. Produce/update overall site plans
for marketing purposes. Consider SKIA-wide, voluntary (non-regulatory)
planning that could yield shared approaches to infrastructure, wetland
preservation/mitigation, other benefits.
. Infrastructure planning should assume phased construction consistent with
development priorities and pace.
. Evaluate role ofPOB as SEPA lead agency; confirm authority,
availability; and evaluate against other options (will vary with outcome of
annexation).
~
a.
Pursue annexation into City of Bremerton.
. Bremerton considered among better jurisdictions for speed, consistency
and predictability of entitlement process. Considerable recent experience.
. Perceived to have greater capacity to and stronger motivation for
supporting infrastructure necessary for development ofPOB property.
. Cities generally favored over counties (authority, commitment, capacity).
b. Consider alternative, probably interim uses of property that may yield revenues
and conceivably preserve options going forward: natural resource use (gravel);
potentially wetlands mitigation.
c. Evaluate, implement measures to overcome lease limitation. Confirm availability
of longer term. Consider subordination to developer lenders. Explore
substitution or even buyout/withdrawal of FAA restrictions, maybe in conjunction
with Defense-related development campus. Be willing to sacrifice rent for
flexibility in reducing land commItted or recovery altogether to accommodate
changing uses. Review lease form.
-3-
.
d. Additional marketing: regional/generic, possibly in conjunction with other
organizations and/or more use/project specific.
K:\2066159\00001\20126_BGJ\20126025MA
-4-
~:,;,:;c 'if/-
-'j, ..J
.
l"
'illl~ City of B rem erton-S KIA Annexation Proposals
Page 1
Legend
....11I.
1.1II.i SKIA UGA
~ City Limits
C Tax Parcels
_ SKIA North Petitions
. Haines Request Letter
_ SKIA South Petitions
_ Schmidt Request Letter
The City of Bremerton Does not warrant
the accuracy of this infonnation .or mapping,
which should not be relied upon without
independent verification or accuracy.
The user. assumes all risks related to
or arising from the use of this infonnation
or mapping.
June 5th, 2008
N
A
, ~ . J
( ~
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
Growth Framework and Annexation
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) sets a framework and direction
for'coordinated and efficient growth of communities. Under the GMA counties establish
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) wherein population and, employment is expected to be "
c':i;"";~!"iJ~5,"<::;;,,;:,,'j;;<coRcentrated~Qv 'r:"time:~;\,UGAs should.ever;ltually.be provided.,urban.lev,elsofservice; ',,,-,,<..: ,.' , ,~) "';"c'
:.0:~;t~';?:~~lj;~l~;~~;~~f~A'a~'~1fci~t1Gctcrr ~ "itia;~'h6~ta~~I~~~1I;(~~;fJrb~fi;Jrne~ri'~jt;gfiif~v~ibpm~ii't(t:Tfii~:i'Rt~W~lt90~t~:,';F:f~1:1;i}~~~?\:ji:;!~;~,~
within UGAs allows for areas outside of them td remairirural orresource lands, and
, . ,
ensures protection of the State's natural environment.
The South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) UGA was established by Kitsap County more
than a decade ago. Generally speaking, state law allows and encourages cities to
annex territories within UGAs adjacent to their boundaries. The SKIA UGA is adjacent
to only one municipality, the City of Bremerton.
This report was prepared in response to the City's receipt of two annexation petitions
from property owners within the SKIA UGA. The two petitions were presented to the
City on April 22, 2008 and are described as the "SKIA North Petition" and the "SKIA
South Petition" please see report page 1 for a map of the proposed annexation area.
The means by which annexation is being proposed is the "Seventy-Five Percent Petition
Annexation Method" as allowed for by RCW 35.13.125. In summary, this annexation
method is a two-s~ep process whereby two petitions (a "10% Petition" and a "75%
Petition") must be submitted to a jurisdiction. The first petition or "Initiation Petition"
requires signatures from owners of 10% of the assessed property value who are
interested in annexing. This petition is then submitted to the governing body to initiate
the annexation proceedings. The City Council then responds by meeting with the
petitioners within 60 days. Following this meeting with the petitioners, the City Council
has the option to accept, reject, or geographically modify the petition, and this decision
is usually made in the form of a motion or resolution. If the Council chooses to accept
the petition, as presented or modified, then the annexation proceeds to the next step;
gathering of the signatures of owners of 75% of the assessed property value of the
territory proposed for annexation based on the boundaries set by the City Council as
documented in their motion or resolution.
As indicated above, the annexation was initiated by submittal of the 10% petition on
April 22, 2008. The initiating parties represent the owners of 100% of the property
according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned, which is well in
excess of the 10% that is required. The City Council is scheduled to meet with the
petitioners on June 16, 2008, which is within the 60-day period allowed by State law that
they have to respond to this request.
Due to the fact that the initiation petition contains signatures of the owners of 100% of
the assessed value, it demonstrates a high degree of support from the property owners
for this annexation proposal. If the City Council approves 10% petition it appears to be
likely that a 75% petition would be promptly filed with the City. Due to this likelihood,
staff utilized the full 60-day period in the early stages of the annexation process to put
Page 2 of 10
t
I"
t "
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
significant effort into researching and preparing the fiscal analysis of the potential
annexation. This will allow Council to make an informed decision of whether to move
the annexation to the next step, the collection of signatures for the 75% Petition.
. . . . -
Below is 'a table that describes the acres and total assessed values of the two petition
requests that have been submitted to the City. In addition to the formal petitions, the
City has also received two letters of interest from property owners to join the respective
petitions (they are referred to. in the table as the "Schmidt Request" and the "Haines
Request"). The annexation petition areas are also depicted on the map on page 1.
Total
Assessed % Assessed
Acres Value. Value
South Petition 3,011.59 58,926,984 99.23%
Schmidt Reauest 76.8 $459,860 0.77%
South
Subtotal 3,088.39 $59,386,844 100.00%
North Petition 135.11 $1,118,080 71.25%
Haines Reauest 5.67 $451,120 28.75%
North
Subtotal 140.78 $1,569,200 100.00%
Future Growth Analysis & Provision of Urban Services
This report contains an analysis of assumed future growth and identifies the necessary
urban services that are needed to support growth within the potential annexation area.
The analysis presented illustrates how the City of Bremerton will provide the necessary
"urban services." As defined by the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies, these
urban services are:
1. Fire Protection & EMS 6. Transportation
2. Police Protection 7. Solid Waste
3. Sewer 8. Utilities: Power, Telecom, Broadband
4. Potable Water 9. Schools
5. Storm Water 10. Parks & Recreation
The analysis contained in this report summarizes the costs associated with providing
urban services 1 - 6. Items 7 and 8 are provided by third-party purveyors. The City,
like the County, has franchise agreements with these purveyors to provide these
services and they will continue to provide these services regardless of being located in
the County or City and therefore they are not included in this report. Items 9 and 10 are
also not analyzed in this report because it is assumed that all growth within SKIA is
anticipated to be industrial in nature and therefore there will be no increased impact or
need for schools or park and recreation opportunities.
Page 3 of 10
10 J
-4.. I,
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
It should be understood that the analysis presented is dependent upon future events
and that actual conditions may (and are likely to) differ from those assumed herein. The
report presents three growth scenarios by which to consider the annexation:
; , "Lt~f'~tC'i~al "ir~~fl~~;f~~~t;~~wfi;"J!~rt~~~;l~(~l~rt,:;~~~~~~t~ett..BnH1~~9~~&Jl\~z,~,?:j~~t91i~'Y:~S~rK"~I;~~(;;i,~:t& ',' .'
.' ua ':c os~ wma c ' ~~; lIe,;curren ::grOVYLII~pa ,e,rnS?e?CR~r1~nG,tnJW:/1 , 'Jnt ., t\,vi::{rr,
Scenario B: ' High Growth - Aggressive growth that is primarily focused
within the Port Industrial Park over the 20 year period.
Scenario C: SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth - Aggressive growth within
the entire SKIA UGA over the 20 year planning horizon.
These scenarios provide a reasonable "bookend" approach to determine the full range
of financial impacts of the annexation. We believe that the future growth patterns will
likely fall somewhere between these scenarios, and as such they are a good
demonstration of the full range of potential financial impacts to the City and will help to
determine if it is in the City's best interest to accept these annexation petitions.
SCENARIO A - LOW GROWTH
Scenario A: Low Growth Development Summary
This growth model is considered the low end picture of what the City may face if an
annexation was completed and growth occurred in this area in the same scope and
scale that it has occurred in recent years (this can be viewed as the "status quo
development pattern"). Under this scenario it is expected that there will be small
business growth within the Port Industrial Park, increasing by two (2) new businesses
every five (5) years. It is estimated that this development will occur on small parcels,
approximately 1 .5 acres in size, and the businesses will be accommodated in
approximately 15,000 square feet.
20-Year Low Growth Summary
New Businesses: 8
New Employees: 145
Increase in Commercial Square Feet: 120,000
Increase In Acreage Developed: 12
Page 4 of 10
\~ ~.
t
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
. Scenario A: Low Growth Provision for Urban Services Summary
The following table summarizes the assumptions made to support each of the urban.
services under the low growth scenario:
Potable Water
, :~~,,~~'grQ~~~lq~i~!',SiiE.~,~~~~~rXiG~~~~!I!:&:fi~p!:53~t~~,<t,,~y~~,C),~!~::~i~~I?,;"i
_ '~.Fire,\tlifol!i' tiariiintenocaLa -teemenhvitn:'tlie:C' -';i:''\:c:<:\~:~~,~.";';:;:{l_::c:~:;;:. ,-
Police service and: coverage of the current sou~hBremertori area;
watershed area, and the proposed annexation area is expected in
combination to require an increase in staffing of a sector patrol unit.
The annexation analysis shows a portion of these costs attributed
10% to the rowth in this scenario. .
This scenario does not anticipate any extensive roadway
improvements. While there is several transportation facilities within
the annexation area, most are owned and maintained by the State of
Washington DOT (SR3), and Port of Bremerton (Industrial Park) and
therefore the City would not have significant responsibility for
roadway improvements. With the low growth expected in this
scenario we estimate that there will not be any change to the
transportation demands, and furthennore new road construction
would not be necessary. Therefore it is assumed that we will only
need to su ort road maintenance in a minimal ca acit .
This scenario does not anticipate any additional sewer infrastructure
improvements for the area. There is sufficient capacity with the Port
of Bremerton wastewater collection and treatment system to support '
development in the planning period, and it is assumed in this
scenario that the Port would continue to own and operate this system
throughout the planning period and therefore the City has no
financial expenditures to provide this service. Any required
improvements to this system and all maintenance costs are assumed
to be provided by Port of Bremerton lease revenues and would not
flow through City of Bremerton budgets. As development occurs,
projects will be required to construct necessary improvements as
re uired durin the develo ment review process.
This scenario does not anticipate any additional water system
improvements. There is sufficient existing water supply capacity in
the zone serving this area to meet current and projected demands,
including fire flow under through the 20-year planning horizon. As
development occurs, projects will be required to construct necessary
im rovements as re uired durin the develo ment review rocess.
This scenario does not anticipate any additional stormwater capital
improvements, as there are existing facilities in place that serve the
needs. As development occurs, projects will be required to mitigate
their on-site stormwater impacts through the use of both standard
and low im act develo ment techni ues.
Transportation
Sewer
(Wastewater)
Storm Water
Page 5 of 10
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
Scenario A: Low Gro.wth Financial Summary
The full financial analysis for this. scenario and the supporting notes, assumptions, and
data tables are provided in the "Scenario A" section of this report.
.;~(;i,~;.;,: ",;. :.,; .,~r.;,; .'Thef<fiQaneial~m0gelir;lgJprJhis,s.c~nario: indi.cate~ ,a .net 1?9sitiye..iri1pacUo.Jhe"City,;at, tbe
?;~~t~~*tt'Fri\lf9~~?~;~f~~~E;~fa';t6f~f5~fp~[i(ja~1~yl~witdt(2(j9~~~'02'~~~b~tfit~ffaQiti::~~trl~~~~tffl~Fi~~JG~~~~J{~~~~;~~;':,
negatively impacted in years 2009 to 2011 due to the fact the City will need to make'
payment to Kitsap County for revenue sharing in accordance with the interlocal
agreement for revenue sharing. Throughout the timeframe of twenty years the annual
net (General Fund plus Utilities' Fund) return to the City ranges from a negative amount
of $16,227 to positive amount of $121,708.
In summary, the base annexation picture with the Low Growth Scenario appears
to be a positive financial impact for the City based on the assumptions modeled
. .
and has averaae net annual revenue of just over $50,000 with an ending
cumulative 20-year financial gain of $1,067,766.
SCENARIO B - HIGH GROWTH
Scenario B: High Growth Development Summary
This growth model was developed to provide a model of development that fell between
the conservative Low Growth model and the aggressively high growth model of the
Kitsap County Sub Area Plan. The High Growth model is based on the assumption that
only those parcels that are in the Port Industrial Park and to a lesser extent, those
parcels that are adjacent to the Highway in the "North" petition area would experience
any development in the 20-year horizon, and that the City would focus infrastructure
improvements in these areas alone to support this growth. Under this scenario it is
expected that there will be fairly aggressive growth, increasing by fifteen (15) new
businesses every five (5) years. It is estimated that this development will occur on
moderately sized parcels, just under 3.5 acres in size, and the each of the businesses
will be accommodated in just over 33,300 square feet.
20-Year High Growth Summary
New Businesses: 60
New Employees: 2,424
Increase in Commercial Square Feet: 2,000,000
Increase In Acreage Developed: 200
Page 6 of 10
~ ,~
,J"
t ,I
~
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
ScenarioS: High Growth Provision for Urban Services Summary
The following table summarizes the assumptions made to support each of the urban
services under the low growth scenario: - -
S~?~ ~:Eilte; . 'r6teCtion':-and~EMS~1sei:Vices.~will';De;i, ,'tovidetti-b' -~~:Solittir'J('
::il~ ,~itsl;?;~Fife:tffrb[r";~~:EiR:~inl~fr~(j~li~~I';\t~3rri~rlttwiiti~ta7WGif''I~t:~t,,,_
,,; Police service and coverage ofthecurrenrsouth Brerrierton '
area, watershed area, and the proposed annexation area is
expected in combination to require an increase in staffing of a
, sector patrol unit. The annexation analysis shows a portion of
these costs attributed 25% to the rowth in this scenario.
This scenario does not anticipate any extensive roadway
improvements. While there is several transportation facilities
within the annexation area, most are owned and maintained by
the State of Washington DOT (SR3), and Port of Bremerton -
(Industrial Park) and therefore the City would not have
significant responsibility for roadway improvements. With the
growth expected in this scenario we estimate that the
transportation demands will be met by the State-owned and
Port-owned facilities, and that new road construction by the
City would not be necessary. In the early years of the model it
is assumed that we will only need to support road maintenance
in a minimal capacity, and as development increases over time
the Cit will increase its sup ort accordin Iy~
This scenario results in wastewater flows exceeding the
capacity of the current Port-owned system (72,500 gpd) by
2014. This scenario assumes the City would develop, fund,
design, and construct a Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR)
treatment facility located on the site of the current Port of
Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in 2014. . An
expansion of this system will be required in 2021. Disposal of
treated wastewater will be through methods of water reuse with
accom an in ca ital im rovements.
This scenario illustrates the increased need for water and
requires an additional transmission main from the golf course
to the 01 m ic View Industrial Park b 2014.
This scenario does not anticipate any additional stormwater
capital improvements, as there are existing facilities in place
that serve the needs. As development occurs, projects will be
required to mitigate their on-site stormwater impacts through
the use of both standard and low impact development
techni ues.
Police Protection'
Transportation
Sewer
(Wastewater)
Potable Water
Storm Water
Page 7 of 10
~ ~
,I
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
Scenario B: High Growth Financial Summary
The full financial analysis for this scenario and the supporting notes, assumptions, and
data tables are provided in the "Scenario B" section of this report. .
o " ;Jj.1i;~;:j~'~';::~~i~~~o~:~Jl~~~~~J~9.18q~i!~g~~lw:tthi,~; ~.~~.':laJi9d.~(ti,~tE(,~ i:~"<[~~tj~..~si~!y<~. tnW~~J.t!O~~~~'o~JJx,~M~,~;t:~ ',)
;, >} ("<;''''iJ~Y, ';'{"_1"1':''1'en~j",of.~tbe~p.erloa1revleV(ea:(2QOa.72028J:' ;?l;lilel,mQoel"ln~ lcates~ tltat:tI)e'<~en,eral~F:ur:lqJ""": "",;,{ .
orilyexperiences one year of negative financial impact, which is caused by the fact that
the City will need to make payment to Kitsap County for revenue sharing in accordance
. with the interlocal agreement for revenue sharing. For all other years the General Fund
experiences growth over time. In most years the Utilities Fund experiences positive
financial benefits and in years 2014 and 2020 the model shows investment in capital
improvements to support the growth. Throughout the timeframe of twenty years the
annual net (General Fund plus Utilities Fund) return to the City ranges from a negative
amount of $1,014,207 (due to investment in capital improvements utilizing prior period
revenues) to a positive amount of $843,156.
In summary, the base annexation picture with the High Growth Scenario appears
to be a positive financial impact for the City Ibased on the assumptions modeled
and has averaae net annual revenue, of just over $320,000 with an ending
cumulative 20-year financial gain of $6,475,552.
SCENARIO C - SKIA SUB AREA PLAN GROWTH
Scenario C: SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Development Summary
This growth model describes development at an extremely high growth rate based on
the "South Kitsap Industrial Area Sub-Area Plan" (SKIA SAP) dated December 8, 2003,
developed and researched by Kitsap County Department of Community Development.
The SKIA SAP recognizes a significantly high potential growth model for the UGA, with
development expected at 550 acres over twenty years (2003-2023) and employment
growth of roughly 9,350 new jobs over the same period. These numbers were
. calculated with the expectation that infrastructure is available and the regional location
of SKIA would draw large industrial and manufacturing companies similar to those found
in other industrial areas of the Puget Sound.
This scenario is considered a particularly elevated assumption of what the City may
face financially if aggressively high growth occurred in this area. Under this scenario it
is expected that there will be an increase of twenty-five (25) new businesses every five
(5) years. It is estimated that this development will occur on larger sized parcels,
approximately 5.5 acres in size, and that each of the businesses will be accommodated
in approximately 77,000 square feet.
20-Year SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Summary
New Businesses: 100
.. New Employees: 9,333
Increase in Commercial Square Feet: 7,700,000
Increase In Acreage Developed: 550
Page 8 of 10
..l, ;.
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
Scenario C: SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Provision for Urban Services Summary
The following table summarizes the assumptions made to support each of the urban
services under the low growth scenario: .' '
Police Protection
.,
€lii?thEir~a..r';':-ears~of(thetTloael;;Fire;:'rotec . ., "ancKEMS'servicesI.will
l~(,~::" ~~~,~,.:,~.(<"y.~~;~/{'i-, ~,}I;''!.~~~'1''f;,..c,,,.;t.'''~'#'.~;j',r.. :, ~~,/.\, ;;:_.... ~'4\...- '''''!:''V1:'::~''';~ "1~.il' ' ""'"",,,r..,,:.{" .'Ir~':- ,y; ~<;..t -n ","__",:,-'_;0 ~'j"flloir~~>t.i"':'
~D~f: rovide(Uf':Sbuili')Kitsa' ~6ir:eTttiroiifh l'. tErdocara'r:eement~;ft
'., " Q ,',''', ,..:,,,.y~ .,."',"""'.. ,p., "',,'''' '","," g" ,'x.. "" .'," ",,,,,,.g,,,., . --, ., "P',,'
with the City: Due to the il'JcreasedgroWth demands' of this model, .
. . '
. the City of Bremerton fire will transition to providing full service by
2015. This will require the construction of a new fire station with City
staffin confi uration.
Police service and coverage of the current south Bremerton area,
watershed area, and the proposed annexation area is expected in
combination to require an increase in staffing of a sector patrol unit.
The annexation analysis shows a portion of. these costs attributed
50% to the rowth in this scenario. '
This scenario does not anticipate any extensive roadway
improvements. While there is several transportation facilities within
the annexation area, most are owned and maintained by the State of
Washington DOT (SR3), alid Port of Bremerton (Industrial Park).
With the growth expected in this scenario we estimate that the
transportation demands will be met by the State-owned and Port-
owned facilities, and that any new road construction would be funded
by developers. Like the High growth model, the CitY has allocated
road maintenance in a minimal capacity each year. As service, '
needs increase over time, with development occurring outside the
Port and in the Southern portion of SKIA, more City streets will be
created. With this model, capital funding has been allocated to
support these new City streets.
Transportation
Potable Water
This scenario models very rapid growth through the planning period,
and this growth rate requires significant expansion of wastewater
facilities, as the development far exceeds the capacity of an MBR
(that was presented in the High Growth Scenario). The scenario
assumes construction of City of Bremerton facilities to convey the
wastewater from SKIA to the Westside WWTP via pump stations and
additional wastewater mains. These improvements will take place in
three hases
This scenario illustrates the increased need for water and requires
additional transmission and storage to be constructed in three
hases. The Cit has ade uate source ca acit to serve the needs.
This scenario .does not anticipate any additional stormwater capital
improvements for the area, as there are existing facilities in place
that serve the needs. As development occurs, projects will be
required to mitigate their on-site stormwater impacts through the use
of both standard and low im act develo ment techni ues.
Sewer
(Wastewater)
Storm Water
Page 9 of 10
\
J,
Financial Assessment - SKIA Annexation June 2008
City of Bremerton, Washington
Scenario C: SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Financial Summary
The full financial analysis for this scenario and the supporting notes, assumptions, and
data tables are provided in the "Scenario C" section of this report.
, ; , ,'"!1~m.,R~!~m,,q~~in9,iI9,~1.~~~~~m~tYit'!~.9,,,gr.\9~~i'~iei~';1.~I!.C?2n9.!~t~~\~:;9.~~~HR~il!Y~~~;0; "i,""
~ t"'t""'''tti' "It::"t~"~' 't',rt"''''~''''''<''''' "'f't~' J'~'""'""H ",;;,i' , '''' .' ,,' ,,'" d' "(2008"202'8)-"''T'''' """"""'" 'I~'" '.:.I' "#"t"
, ',.,. ~:~9:: -.~~,~/, Y;i\a,)~;!~~eQ~!9),~,~)p,(jlqQ~}X~YJ~W~}_' ,~, ,,~. ."::'~;~~f!/~fQ19":1~;}~H,I98.,~,S,, '
that,the General Fund does not experience any negative finaricialimpacts and iri fact is
quite positively impacted throughout the forecast period. However, City utilities incurs
substantial capital costs at various points in the modeling time period as they do not
have sufficient time to recover from those initial investments in the period of analysis.
With growth of this scope and scale, and with significant investments in the latter period
of the analysis, it would be useful to model the growth demands over a period in excess
of 20 years in order to properly understand the impacts to the Utility system. However
this was beyond the scope of this analysis and overall, the citywide financial impact is
substantially positive.
In summary, the base annexation picture with the SKIA Sub Area Plan Scenario
appears to be a positive financial impact for the City based on the assumptions
modeled and has averaae net annual revenue of just under $370,000 with an
ending cumulative 20-year financial gain of $7,383,713.
Page 10 of 10
~ ;.
SKIA Annexation Financial Assessment
June 2008
Part II of IV
Scenario A "Low Growth"
Lall Updftt~
June 4, 2006
Net,Flnanclallmpacb CattiOl,>FOIWard (1.)
Be",..t&:
Of' Property Tax Revenue (2)
Of leasehok' Tal( RlI'IIlInue (3)
OF Admllndons Till(' RovenlJe (<4)
(if Patking Tax R.'IIenue (5)
GF Sai~ Tax R....enue (6)
GF B&O Tax Reveno. (7)
GF Per Citplta Revenue Diatrlbutions from SUile (8)
GF Relll Estate Excise Tax on Propolti Sate. (9)
Of UtiUty Tax Revenull ~ ElecITelephlilnel501id.Waate (10)
U'f Utility GFC Payments (WaterMlMtewater/stOfm) (11)
Of De",elQper P~rnent (12)
UT Dovelopor Payment (12)
tiT Ulitity Rato R."'fl'IU05. \r\Wer (13)
lJ.T lJUIty Rate Rovenlle. ~ Wute...er (13)
UT Utifny Rate RfleftUCl- Stormwat.r (13)
OF payment In lieu ofTp~WatorUtit((14)
G' Payment in lieu of Tax - WasleWlIW Utility (14)
GF Payment ift Llou anax ~ Stannweter UtlUty (14)
GF Bond,Proceed$. GO Bonds (15)
u;r Bond Proc..cis. Revenue BoM1i (15)
T__",
City 01- BremelteA - SI(IA Area AIll'lexaiion
FinaRciaI Assesmeol
Fmanciat Impacta Scenario. Annexation (~low GrowW)
~ 2010 imll
$ (16,227) S 5,931
8,700 11,486 11,601
47,201 48,988 50.446
62,99B 67,674 63,967
95 96 100
17,1B5 18,2:5& 18,785
21,323
34,505 35,85& 36,934
55,580 58,El79 60,439
2,933 3,0.48 3,139
4,724 <4.1188 5,137
=
2,517
.62.ll
47 579
14,783
53,901
~ 2015 2016
83,556 S 100,839 $ 160,330
14,931 18,208 18,390
55,495 57,566 59,257
77,033
107
6,713
20,517
311,531
85,684
3,360
5,563
76,210 81,725 80,851
110 113 116
21,133 22,390 23,062
2<4,719
40,717 42,308 43,577
67,655 71,343 73.484
3,461 3,596 3,704
285.461 326,033 308,688
5,751 6,064 6,246
WI
192,420
21,893
61,455
~ ~ 2020 2021
267,104 S 312,856 $ 344,200 $ 424,692
90,174
22,112 22,333 26,183 26,445
63,248 65,096 67,497 69.457
120
85,823 92,032 98,535 97,636
124 127 131 135
7,782
25,147 25,902 27,402 28,224
28,656
24,415
30.497
45,276
"'6,634 48,033 49,902 51,399
77,448
3,848
6,583
79,772 82,165 86,553 89,150
3,964 4,083 4,2"'2 4,369
6,781 6,984 7,357 7,578
~ 2023
473.640 $ 567,241
108,561 103,638
30,557 30,863
72,005 74,085
139 143
9,021
29,837 30,732
30,402
53,394 54,996
93,885 96,681
.(,538 4,675
7,979 8,218
2024 ~
632.486 $ 681,268
110,960 118,627
Financlal,tmpact Scenario
AJilMxatian ("LQW Growth")
""
31,172 35,688
76,226 79,010
148 152
31,654 33,442
~" . 33,221
56,646 58,841
99,581 104,799
4,815 5,001
8,464 8,908
2026 2027 2028
787,272 $ 856,957 $ 978,665
36.045 40,866 41,274
61,263 84,236 66,647
117,717 130,517 124,951
157 161 166
10,458
34,445 36.367 37,458
35,2"'4
60,607 62.951 64,839
107,943 113,546 116,953
5,152 5,351 5,511
9,175 9.651 9,941
E~nd1SUfU:
(if Pavment to Kltsap Count)'. Re'llenuo Sharing Agmt (16)
Gf Fire/EMS SONice ExpeRY (17)
GF PoJiC8 Service Expen5e (18)
GF PublicWorkt. & Ul1litlts. Streoti & Bectronics (19)
ur Public Works & lJtiIrtiflG - W.ter Expense (20)
UT Public Works & Utlktifl$. Wastewater Expenso (20)
U:r PublIC Works & utiSties. Stormwater Expense (20)
(if Capital Coats. Generai Fund (police} (21)
<if Clifli:IaI C061& - SV'oet6 & Etectronic& (22)
U1 Capital Com.. Wa'rAr Sy~m (23)
U:r Capital Cost&.. W8Stewaier Sylitom (23)
U'f Capital Costs - Stonnwator (23)
GF Debt Service on GO Debt (15)
ltT Debt S",..,.ice on ReYenlJO BondlO (15)
TQtato~tures
Mmial.Net.Casb,Aow
Ending'Cumulathle FlnaflC~.tmpact CM)
General Fund Net Financial tmpact
Utilffies Net FlI1anclBi Impact
Glin.I1liFlllldbom
LItilyS1wmllom
..
lIT
233,922 270,378 250 549
250148
(16227)
18,227 $
(17,7121
1,486
56,806
57,000
34,629
5,000
33,287
55,302
8,115
2<48,220
22,158
5,1131 $
37,870
58,710
53,501
5,150
34,603
58,386
1713)
22,871
253 964
(3,415)
2,517 $
(5,009)
1,585
16,935
60,<471
73,475
5,:105
35,641
60,137
11,717
51,949
71,635
103
19,919
22,622
3a,380
63,771
3,262
5,.21
268,979
287,211
64,154
77,9"'9
5,628
38,147
66,079
60.288
5,796
39,292
68,061
82,697
5,970
40,827
70,986
268,541
59,491
160,330 S
32,935
26,556
276 598
32,090
361,709
70,103
65,177
6,14a
42,052
73,117
287,025
74,684
192,420 $ 267.104 $
30,197
1,893
341,387 346,755 396,458 374,393
72,206
67,733
6,334
43,691
77,061
42,215
32.469
295,636
45,751
312,856
43,720
2,031
74,372
90,365
6,524
45,002
79,373
315,410
31,345
344,200 $
29,253
2,092
See -NotBS to the SKIA Area AnnBxation (~nnexation -low gro'IAh sc&nario) ~ Financial Impact A5sessment" for key assumptions and explanations.
62,285
75,679
5,464
37,037
63,452
2435117
45062
47,579 $
20,n8
24,284
251,234
35,977
65,356
67,317
9,407
268 179
17.262
83,556 $ 100,839 $
34,265
1,712
15,519
1,763
76,603
93,076
6,720
46,352
78,901
95,868
6,921
48,155
81,754
10,906
86,120
315,966
80,492
424,692 $
49,657
30,835
325,446
48.948
473,640 $
46,703
2,245
431,2n 413,052
81,268
98,744
7,129
"'9,600
83,706
101,706
7,343
51,525
88,704
93,396
337,676
93,601
567,241 $
60,861
32,740
86,218
104,758
7,563
53,071
347 807
65,245
632,486 $
62,B37
2,408
419,666 477,689
88,804
107,900
7,790
54,663
96,198
99,063
12,643
370;883
48,782
681,268 $
46,302
2,"'81
371.686
106,003
787,272 $
70,199
35,804
452,523 518,890 498,198
91,466
111,137
8,024
56,782
94,212
114,471
8,264
56,"'86
104,275
107,403
382,837
69.685
856,957 S
67,025
2,861
97.D3e
117,906
8,512
60,748
99,950
121,443
6,768
62,570
112,978
116,368
397182
121708
978,685
83,693
36,015
409096
89100
1.067,766
86,246
2,854
BASE ANNEXATION SCENARIO - LOW GROWTH
RETAIL SALES, 8&0, AND PROPERTY TAX INCREASES ESTIMATION
(note 2)
(note 1) Average 0.125% (note 3) 0.85% 0.125% (note 4)
# of Businesses wI # of Businesses wI Taxable Retail Estimated 0.85% Bremerton Development Bremerton Bremerton Total Total Property 3%
Revenues Subject Revenues Not Subject Sales Per Taxable Bremerton Retail 8&0 Construction Sales Tax on Retail 8&0 on Bremerton Bremerton Tax Increase Escalation
Year To Sales Tax To Sales Tax Total Business Retail Sales Sales Tax Tax Costs Construction Construction Sales Tax Rev 8&0 Tax Rev from Canst Factor
2009 22 18 40 $ 322,434 $ 7,093,539 $ 60,295 Exempt $ 397,600 $ 2,704 Exempt $ 62,999 Exempt 1.0000
2010 22 19 41 332,107 7,306,346 62,104 Exempt 819,056 5,570 Exempt 67,674 Exempt 2,699 1.0300
2011 22 19 41 342,070 7,525,536 63,967 Exempt Exempt 63,967 Exempt 1.0609
2012 23 19 42 352,332 8,103,634 68,881 Exempt 434,468 2,954 Exempt 71,835 Exempt 1.0927
2013 23 19 42 362,902 8,346,743 70,947 Exempt 895,005 6,086 Exempt 77,033 Exempt 2,949 1.1255
2014 23 19 42 373,789 8,597,145 73,076 Exempt 460,927 3,134 Exempt 76,210 Exempt 1.1593
2015 23 20 43 385,003 8,855,060 75,268 Exempt 949,510 6,457 Exempt 81,725 Exempt 3,128 1.1941
2016 23 20 43 396,553 9,120,711 77,526 Exempt 488,998 3,325 Exempt 80,851 Exempt 1.2299
2017 24 20 44 408,449 9,802,782 83,324 Exempt 1,007,336 6,850 Exempt 90,174 Exempt 3,319 1.2668
2018 24 20 44 420,703 10,096,865 85,823 Exempt Exempt 85,823 Exempt 1.3048
2019 24 20 44 433,324 10,399,771 88,398 Exempt 534,341 3,634 Exempt 92,032 Exempt 1.3439
2020 24 21 45 446,324 10,711,765 91,050 Exempt 1,100,743 7,485 Exempt 98,535 Exempt 3,627 1.3842
2021 24 21 45 459,713 11,033,118 93.781 Exempt 566,883 3,855 Exempt 97,636 Exempt 1.4258
2022 25 21 46 473,505 11,837,616 100,620 Exempt 1,167,778 7,941 Exempt 108,561 Exempt 3,848 1.4685
2023 25 21 46 487,710 12,192,744 103,638 Exempt Exempt 103,638 Exempt 1.5126
2024 25 21 46 502,341 12,558,526 106,747 Exempt 619,448 4,212 Exempt 110,960 Exempt 1.5580
2025 25 22 47 517,411 12,935,282 109,950 Exempt 1,276,063 8,677 Exempt 118,627 Exempt 4,204 1.6047
2026 25 22 47 532,934 13,323,341 113,248 Exempt 657,172 4,469 Exempt 117,717 Exempt 1.6528
2027 26 22 48 548,922 14,271,963 121,312 Exempt 1,353,775 9,206 Exempt 130,517 Exempt 4,460 1.7024
2028 26 22 48 565,389 14,700,121 124,951 Exempt Exempt 124,951 Exempt 1.7535
(note 1) there are 40 total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the WA Dept of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton. and the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance.
Of this total, the WA Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses in the proposed annexation anea
(all located in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales tax of $7.1 million in 2007. The remamder
represent businesses that produce products or services that are not subject to the retail sales tax.
Future business growth is assumed to maintain this same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales
taxable businesses - in that it is assumed that every other business added to the area is subject to sales tax.
(note 2) initial value of $235,353 average retaIl taxable sales per business in Kitsap County per
"Washmgton State Almanac 2006-2007" incneased by a factor of 1.37 in recognition of the type of
busInesses anticipated to locate in this area - then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. The
WA State Dept of Revenue confirmed there were 22 businesses in the proposed annexation area which
had revenues subject to sales tax of $7. 1 million in 2007. This computes to an average of $322, 727 per
business which is just slightly more than the results provided by using the average retail taxable sales per
business in Kitsap County per "Washmgton State Almanac 2006-2007" increased by a faclorof 1.37.
(note 3) Development of two 1.5 acre industrial/retail business sites on average is assumed every five years
adding two business - each having a 15,000 Sq Ft commercial building. The assessed value of these
projected business site developments is assumed to be $1, 192,800 (in 2008 dollars) per sIte with 1/3 of the cost
in the first year and 213 of the cost in the following year. This is based on $79.52/Sq Ft average cost for
industrial faCIlity structures per the International Code Council Building Valuation Data - published January-February
2008. Taxable ccnstruction ccsts are assumed to be 80% of the assessed value for purposes of ccmputing
sales tax and B&O tax impacts.
(note 4) Property tax increase for construction Is held to today's dollar rate per $1, 000 A V - ignoring decreases in
the dollar rate per $1,000 of A V related to property value increases while also ignoring the City's permitted 1%
annual property tax amount increase.
'.
BASE ANNEXATION SCENARIO - LOW GROWTH ...
LEASEHOLD TAX ESTIMATION
Escalated at 3%
(note 1) (note 2) 4.00% Cumulative
Leasehold Tax Land Development Bremerton Leasehold Tax Total Estimated 3%
Existing Subject to Port Leasehold Tax Additions From Bremerton Escalation
Year Businesses Lease Agreements Additional Leases New Development Leasehold Tax Rev Factor
2009 $ 47,201 $ $ $ 47,201 1.0000
2010 48,617 9,270 371 371 48,988 1.0300
2011 50,075 371 50,446 1.0609
2012 51,578 371 51,949 1.0927
2013 53,125 10,130 405 776 53,901 1.1255
2014 54,719 776 55,495 1.1593
2015 56,360 10,746 430 1,206 57,566 1 .1941
2016 58,051 1,206 59,257 1.2299
2017 59,793 11 ,401 456 1,662 61 ,455 1.2668
2018 61,587 1,662 63,248 1.3048
2019 63,434 1,662 65,096 1.3439
2020 65,337 12,458 498 2,160 67,497 1.3842
2021 67,297 2,160 69,457 1.4258
2022 69,316 13,217 529 2,689 72,005 1.4685
2023 71,396 2,689 74,085 1.5126
2024 73,538 2,689 76,226 1.5580
2025 75,744 14,442 578 3,267 79,010 1.6047
2026 78,016 3,267 81,283 1.6528
2027 80,356 15,322 613 3,879 84,236 1 .7024
2028 82,767 3,879 86,647 1.7535
(note 1) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a public lessor for the right to use
publicly owned tax-exempt property for private purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of providing governmental services. Of the
12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31% of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in
2007. The calculated amount that would have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes is the same as the amount calculated for
2007 and then escalated by 3% each year thereafter.
(note 2) Per Port of Bremerton staff, new development on the Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of
Port owned land with the developer paying for the improvements directly - paying property taxes on the improvements portion and the
Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the leasehold tax estimates include an expectation of new land lease arrangements for each
new business development in the projected period. Per Port staff the current lease payment amount for unimproved property is
$6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are "pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For purposes
of this analysis it is assumed that each 1.5 acre new development in the forecast period is unimproved property and the rate of
$6,000 per year in 2008 dollars is used escalated 3% per year for future periods..
.. I'
.
{I t 1
NOTES
Financial Impact Assessment - SKIA Annexation
Low Growth Scenario Notes
The City of Bremerton management has prepared projected financial impact assessment
information for the descIibed annexation area with an assumption of low future growth in the
area. In the preparation of this financial analysis, the City has made certain assumptions with
respect to conditions that may occur in the future. It is the City's belief that the projected
financial information was prepared on a reasonable basis. The City staff believe this analysis
reflects the best currently available estimates and judgments, and presents, to the best of
management's knowledge and belief, the expected course of action and the expected future
financial impacts of the proposed annexation with the assumption of low or modest future
growth in the area. It should be understood that this analysis is dependent upon future events -
actual conditions may (and are likely to) differ from those assumed herein.
The following pages represent explanatory notes for individual elements of the [mancial
assessment analysis, as well as pIincipal considerations and assumptions made by the City in the
preparation of the financial impact information.
The following are the base and growth assumptions for
the Low Growth scenario:
Existing Businesses 40 total estimated current businesses in the proposed
annexation area based on data compiled from the
Washington State Department of Revenue and the Port
of Bremerton. Of this total, the Washington State
Department of Revenue has indicated that 22
businesses in the proposed annexation area (all located
in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales
tax of$7.1 million in 2007
Existing Households +/- 1 total current residential households in the
annexation area
Existing Residential Population Assuming 2.5 people on average per household this
equates to a population in the proposed annexation area
of aooroximately 2.5 +/- currently
Future Development Assumption: Assumed development of 2 parcels of 1.5 acres each of
Acres & Businesses Increased industry every five years.
This results in the addition of two new businesses on
average every five years.
Future Development Assumption: Development is assumed to be located on Port of
Location Bremerton industrial park property only in this
scenano.
1
" : I \ .), )
Summary table of Business Growth and Acres Developed
over the 20-year time horizon for the Low Growth Scenario:
Year 3 Businesses 2 Employees 3 Commercial Sq Ft 4 Acres Developed
~~"i'(r0'8'tii1~~6~~~j;'o-c"ii~~~>i~~~;i1~~~.t~~I~~~3'6iil21;iif )[~~~0~""'~\t~~~~g3~89i'
~6.,,< _;>l ~~~~;g'",_~<:" ~~~~,lf}~A:~","<.1 ~~~{:l%lJ:.IT~""~~""d,J;,_:' u'ii'i~'1.",,,,iii~~;~,,,jl'jf~fiL .,',. ,_..~
2009 40 438 361,217 493.89
2010 41 456 376,217 495.39
2011 41 456 376,217 495.39
2012 42 474 391,217 496.89
!~"'2"O""'.t"b<i:l"~~~'ro~'..~,*~x;,"" ~~~~'~~';'iA~ ~1iL1'fJl\~~~1i:;:;'~
'k~-.__,._.:J_~{~~ ~~~1f!~i~~~,~l;t t~~~;~~~;~Af)t ~?~~~~~~~
2014 42 474 391,217 496.89
2015 43 492 406,217 498.39
2016 43 492 406,217 498.39
2017 44 511 421,217 499.89
i!l;:r-"~ ''=''i'''''''' "," ~'<<~~~'''"i!?&!:''~~ ~"'~ra"rn
~2...>?~&;2.11t7.tIR ~_~~"~j!'i-~~if4.!t~_~~.
2019 421,217 499.89
2020 436,217 501.39
2021 436,217 501.39
2022 46 451,217 502.89
1i@~~~fa~~.,.,,91
2024 46 502.89
2025 47 504.39
2026 47 504.39
2027 48 505.89
Ilit Li~
All data complied to include North and South petitions and requests
2 PSRC assi ns Manufacturin and Industrial emplo ment rowth to 550-1100 Sq Ft/ Employee
3 Growth Factor on average of 2 new businesses every 5 years. With an expected 15,000
Commercial Sq Ft. per 1.5 acres per business. This data was compiled in conjunction with the Port
of Bremerton and Kitsap Economic Development alliance.
4 Acres developed were analyzed using 2006 aerial photos with City of Bremerton GIS and includes
the airport runway facilities.
Notes to Low Growth Financial Assessment spreadsheet:
(I) Net financial impacts carried forward represents the prior year's ending cumulative
net financial impact.
(2) Property tax revenue for 2009 is based upon current assessor information for parcels
in the proposed annexation area (2008 valuations and tax rolls). Taxable assessed
values in 1,000's of dollars is then multiplied by $2.2181 (City of Bremerton regular
levy rate for 2008 of $1.9032/$1,000 A V and EMS levy rate for 2008 of
$0.3149/$1,000 A V). The property tax revenue is then increased by 1% each year
thereafter starting from the base 2009 year. The property tax amounts in the base
annexation area are generally quite low for such a large land area but this is due to the
public properties in existence there (Port ofBremerton) which are not subject to a
property tax levy - and due to the large proportion of remaining properties being
designated as open space or forest land status which substantially reduces the
property taxes on those parcels.
2
(3) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a
public lessor for the right to use publicly owned tax-exempt property for private
purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of
providing governmental services. Of the 12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City
receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31 % of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton
paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in 2007. The calculated amount that would
have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes
is the same as the amount calculated for 2007 and then escalated by 3 % each year
thereafter. In addition, Port of Bremerton staff indicate that new development on the
Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of Port owned land
with the developer paying for the improvements directly - paying property taxes on
the improvements portion and the Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease
payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the leasehold tax estimates include an
expectation of new land lease arrangements for each new business development in the
projected period. Per Port staff the current lease payment amount for unimproved
property is $6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are
"pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For purposes of this analysis it is
assumed that each 1.5 acre new development in the forecast period is unimproved
property and the rate of $6,000 per year in 2008 dollars is used and then escalated by
3% each year thereafter.
(4) Admissions tax revenue is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any current
sources of admission revenues that exist or which would be anticipated to be
developed - which would be subject to the City's Admission tax.
(5) Parking tax is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any parking facilities
existing in the area or proposed to be developed in the future - which charge for such
services and would be subject to the City's Parking tax.
(6) Sales tax revenue includes revenues from existing (22 businesses currently reporting
taxable retail transactions to the DOR) and projected additional businesses. It is
assumed that two businesses on average every five years will be added. There are 40
total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the W A Dept of Revenue, and the Port of Bremerton. Of this total,
the W A Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses in the proposed annexation
area (all10cated in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales tax in 2007.
The remainder represents businesses that produce products or services that are not
subject to the retail sales tax. Future business growth is assumed to maintain this
same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales taxable businesses - in
that it is assumed that every other business added to the area is subject to sales tax.
2009 tax revenues are computed using the assumption that taxable revenues would be
the same as the DOR reported occurred in 2007 for the area. As growth is modeled
to occur in the forecast period, the new businesses assumed to be subject to sales tax
are assumed produce taxable revenues equivalent to 1.37 times the average taxable
retail sales per business for Kitsap County ($235,353) per the "Washington State
Almanac 2006-2007" then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. Actual results
for the 22 businesses verified by the DOR for 2007 - validate the use of this
calculated value of retail sales revenue per business as the DOR actual average
computes to an average of$322,727 per business in the area- and 1.33 times the
, J'
,
/ I' J.
3
A ~l I II .., J.
Washington State Almanac infonnation results in an average of$313,019. The City
tax rate is .00085 (1 % less .15% administrative fee to the County). The sales tax on
construction of future development in the proposed annexation area assumes the
projected new businesses result in the addition of a 15,000 square foot Commercial
structure on a 1.5 acres parcel per business with construction costs estimated to be
$1,192,800 in 2008 dollars based on an average cost of$79.52/Sq Ft for industrial
facility structures as published in the January-February 2008 International Code
Council Building Valuation Data - of which the taxable construction costs is assumed
to be 80% of this amount. Construction values are escalated at 3% per year.
(7) B&O tax revenue is assumed to be zero. Recent changes to the City's B&O tax code
exempt businesses from the tax if they are located on industrially zoned Port
properties and all areas annexed into the City are exempt from B&O tax for a period
of three years for businesses located in the area at the time of annexation. This
analysis conservatively assumes that all projected growth in this modest/low growth
scenario would occur on Port of Bremerton owned property and would therefore be
exempt from the City B&O tax.
(8) Washington State distributes gas tax, liquor tax, and criminal justice funds to the City
on a per capita basis. The City's share of this distribution will increase with any
population added by this proposed annexation. The budgeted combined rate for 2008
is $37.88 per the State Department of Revenue. This amount is multiplied by the
population initially estimated to be included in the proposed annexation area (2.5).
The dollar amount per capita is then increased by 3% each year thereafter. No further
population growth is assumed as it is not expected that future development would be
residential.
(9) Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue in this low growth scenario is assumed to
come from very limited sales transactions of privately owned buildings situated on
land leased from the Port of Bremerton. Per Port of Bremerton staff, historical
experience suggests that approximately 2 such transactions occur in every 10 year
period. The 0.5% tax is applied to an assumed sale of a 15,000 square foot building
every fifth year in the forecast period with the value estimated conservatively to be
$1,192,800 in 2008 dollars based on an average cost to construct of$79.52/Sq Ft for
industrial facility structures as published in the January-February 2008 International
Code Council Building Valuation Data as then escalated by 3% in each year
thereafter.
(10) Utility taxes are based on average annual power bills of $2,760 in 2008 dollars for a
typical business enterprise located on Port property (per Port of Bremerton staff) and
an estimated telephone service annual cost of $1,200 in 2008 dollars, and (per Waste
Management staff) an annual solid waste disposal service cost of $80,851 in 2008
dollars for existing businesses located in the proposed annexation area with an
average annual rate of $2,995 in 2008 dollars as then each multiplied by the number
of businesses projected tobe added in future periods of the forecast and escalated by
3% each year thereafter. Utility tax rates are 6% for electricity and telephone, and
9.5% for solid waste disposal services. No revenue estimate is made for utility taxes
on services to residential accounts or for cable television services due to lack of
residences identified in the proposed annexation area and no expectation of
residential development in the area in the future.
(11) The Port of Bremerton owns and operates its own wastewater utility. The wastewater
utility has sufficient capacity to serve the increase in demand proposed by the low
growth scenario. For the purposes of this analysis it will be assumed that the
wastewater utility will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the Port of Bremerton
4
and there will be no expenses or revenues related to wastewater. In accordance with
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.06.020(a) - A general facility charge (GFC)
shall be charged on all new or expanded service connections to the water and storm
water utility system. The calculation of the general facility charge for water shall be
based on the meter size to be installed for a new or expanded water utility service.
The calculation for general facility charges for storm water shall be based on the
number of impervious surface units (ISUs) as defined in BMC 15.01.020. The
number ofISUs charged shall be based on the total impervious area divided by the
amount of impervious area in an ISU. The rates applied are per the current BMC.
General Facility Charges (GFC) for this analysis is based on the following
assumptions for all industrial use:
· Each industrial parcel is assumed to be one and half acres
· The water meter sizes are proportional to the existing development in the area
.. Each industrial parcel averages 35,000 square feet impervious
(12) Based on the growth projections of this low growth scenario, no major infrastructure
improvements will be needed. Mitigation costs to be paid by the Developer as
determined through the development review process and the BMC. For the purposes
of this analysis the water and storm water system capital improvements will be
financed by the development or other sources such as CTED grants.
(13) Utility system rate revenues are computed in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the
BMC - which establishes and sets forth the current fees, rates and other charges for
connection to or utilization of the City's utility systems. The utility rates in this
analysis are based on the following assumptions:
· The water meter sizes are proportional to the existing development in the area.
The rates are based on a basic commercial rates
· Each industrial parcel averages 35,000 square feet impervious. The rate is
based on the number ofImpervious Surface Units (ISU)
(14) The City General Fund imposes on its internal utility systems a payment in lieu of tax
- similar to the utility tax imposed on external utilities. The current rate is 8.5% of
utility system rate revenues for water, wastewater, and stormwater. This amount
represents revenue to the General Fund and is added to annual expenses of the utility
systems as noted in (19) below. This is an internal transfer between the City's utility
systems and the City's General Fund and is thus shown as both a receipt and an
expense in this analysis.
(15) This analysis assumes there is no issuance of either government obligation (GO)
municipal bond debt or utility system revenue bond debt to fund capital
improvements.
(16) Payment to Kitsap County for revenue sharing in accordance with the interlocal
agreement concerning revenue sharing upon annexation. Revenue Sharing payments
are based on three sources of revenue: 1) County's portion of the local retail sales tax
levied; 2) Ad Valorem property tax levied by the County pursuant to RCW 36.82.040
for establishment and maintenance of county transportation systems; and 3)
Admission tax levied by the County pursuant to Chapter 36.38 RCW. The combined
total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area
during the calendar year preceding annexation net of the same for the first full
calendar year following annexation = "County's Lost Revenue". The amount of
I<
,"
.
,I I" ".
5
j
.tl...l~\(~.J
payment from Bremerton to the County is based on a three-year soft landing approach
with the year 1 payment equal to 75% of the County's Lost Revenue, year 2 payment
equal to 50%, and the third and final year being 25%. The estimated amount of
County lost revenue for these items is $71,000 of sales tax revenue based on the
DOR's reported taxable retail sales in this area of $7,100,000 in 2007, $4,741 in ad
valorem property tax levied for County roads per the County 2008 property tax
assessments for parcels in the proposed annexation area, and zero dollars for
admission tax as the City is not aware of any current sources of admission revenues
that exist.
(17) Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) assumed to be covered by an lnterlocal
Agreement between the Bremerton Fire Department and the South Kitsap Fire and
Rescue ('SKFR') during the forecast period. Per information provided by South
Kitsap Fire and Rescue dated April 15, 2008, the total annual estimated impacts of the
proposed annexation would be a loss of revenue of $57,000 in 2008 dollars. This
analysis assumes that the City would negotiate an agreement for continued coverage
of this area by SKFR setting an initial compensation level at the estimated lost
revenue amount of $57,000 and then providing for cost ofliving increases in years
thereafter (which is assumed to be 3% each year thereafter in this analysis). Further
cost increases are not assumed in this low growth scenario because service level
demand is not anticipated to change dramatically with the modest level of additional
development in the proposed annexation area.
(18) Police service and coverage of the current south Bremerton area, watershed area, plus
the proposed annexation area is expected in combination to require an increase in
staffing of a sector patrol unit to cover the entire area - requiring 7 positions at a total
annual cost (salary and benefits) of $592,571 (2008 dollars) plus $100,000 in annual
estimated associated operational expenses. The proposed annexation area in this
scenario while large geographically is expected to be very low in demand for these
services due to the low growth assumptions in this analysis and the type of
development in the area. A smaller geographical area but an expected higher demand
will come from the anticipated large residential development in the existing South
Bremerton area. Given those expectations for the purposes of this analysis, 10% of
the cost of the added personnel and operational expenses are assumed to be attributed
to this proposed annexation area for this low growth scenario. The computed annual
expense is then increased by 3 % each year thereafter. 10% of the estimated cost to
purchase 2 vehicles and computer equipment for these additional personnel in the
years 2009 and the replacement cost of those vehicles every five years thereafter
(escalated at 3% per year) is included in the capital costs as noted in (21) below. It
is expected that the additional personnel would be based out of the existing police
department building. Bringing new police officers on line requires a period of time to
recruit and train. It is assumed that in the first year (2009) a ramp up to 50% of this
annual expense will occur, rising to 75% in the second year (2010), coming to full
new operational levels by the beginning of the third year (2011).
(19) An estimate of$5,000 per year (2008 dollars) for electronics and street maintenance
costs was provided by the City Engineer. This amount is then escalated by 3% per
year for future years in this analysis.
(20) Utility system expenses are estimated based upon the 2008 budget relationship of
operating expenses to rate revenues charged. For the water, wastewater, and
stormwater system this computes to 88%, 74%, and 91 %, respectively. In addition to
the computation of operation and maintenance expense the total utility expense was
6
.
\. <.. /'~ 1l _.
~, 1 .:
increased in each year by the amount of utility PILOT taxes computed to be
transferred to the General Fund.
(21) General Fund capital costs include police vehicle and equipment purchases necessary
to support the additional staffing needed to provide adequate service levels in the
proposed annexation area in combination with expanded service demands in the south
Bremerton area - as described more fully in note (18) above. Two police vehicles
and computer equipment are assumed to cost $81,148 (2008) in total (of which 10%
is allocated to this proposed annexation area) and are shown being replaced every
fifth year thereafter at an escalated price of 3 % per year.
(22) There is no capital costs assumed for transportation improvements in this scenario.
All capital cost for transportation facilities would be determined by the nature of the
development and would be the financial responsibility of the development and are
therefore not included in this financial analysis.
(23) Capital costs for growth related infrastructure improvements are assumed to be zero
in this low growth scenario as noted in note (12) above.
(24) Ending cumulative financial impact represents the beginning net financial impact for
the period carried forward from prior periods plus the current period receipts less
current period expenditures.
7
.lo I( \ ., J,
SKIA Annexation Financial Assessment
June 2008
Part III of IV
Scenario B "High Growth"
City of Bremerton...SKIA Assumed Development Regions
N
A
_11~1/;'.II/.II~~/".III."~
. m_ i
!
Legend
fIlE) Assumed Development Area
~fllllll~ SKIA UGA
m City Limits
The City of Bremerton Does not warrant
the accuracy of this information or mapping,
which should not be relied upon without
independent verification or accuracy.
The user assumes all risks related to
or arising from the use of this infonmation
or mapping.
May 28th, 2008
SKIA HIGH GROWTH
SCENARIO
FIGURE X
Legend
~~::v New 8" Gravity Main
(Developer Installed)
--- Existing 8" Gravity Main
Existing 8" Water Line
(Convert to Reuse
Force Main)
New 8" Reuse
Foree Main
Existing Bremerton
Sewer Force MQin
R:I . a City Boundary
~ Pump Station
~ MBR Treatment Plant
e
(J 1501,500
,.... ...
3,000
<.""
Filet
ID~
".
;:
I.
SKIA WATER.
HIGH GROWTH
SCENARIO
FIGURE X
Legend
.. 16" Water Main
- UGA Boundary
· .. City Boundary
e
0: 150 1,500 ~.OOO 4.500
r FMI
Lut Upda~
June 5, 2008
NoHlnanclAl~bDpacts Cauled Forward (1)
..........:
GF Property Tax Revenue (2)
GF Leasehold Tax Revonue (3)
Of Admi&Sio,ns Tax Revenue (-4)
Of Parmg Tax Revenue (5)
Gf SaSes Tax Revenue (6)
OF B&O Tax Revenue (7)
Gf Per Capita R~enue Distributions from State (8)
Gf Real Estate Excise Tax o,n Propert{ Saleli (9)
GF 1Jti1lt{ Tar Rovenue. ElocJToIephono/SoIid Waste (10)
UT Ubity GFC Payments (WattlrM'8IitewsterIStorm) (11)
GF Oev~opor Payment (12)
U-T DO'Y8I-oper Paymont) (12)
UT UtIlity loc.allmprovcment Ol&trict (ULlD) Payment (13)
liT Grants. WDtor Reuso, EDA, C~ltal COl\tribulion.. (1.)
UT Utility Rille R....enuK. Water (15)
Vir U1i~ty Rate Revenun. Wast.waler (15)
UT Utility Rate Revenu... Stormwater (15)
QiF Payment In Lieu af TalC - Water UIiI~ (113)
Gf P.ymentm u.u ofTll)( -WO$lewatel Ubllly (16)
(if Payment in u.u afTax - Storrnwater UtJbty (16)
(if' Bond Proceeds - GO Bond.. (17)
OT Bond Proceedli - Revenue Bonds/Loans (17)
ToWRec:elpb
Expenditures:
GF Payment to Kits.ap County. Re....enu. Sharin" Agmt (18)
Gf Fire/EMS ServICe Expense (19)
GF Police SOIVICO E)(pense (20)
Of Public Works & Utlfitio& - Streets & ElectrOlllCS (21)
UT Public Works & UtHitios. - Water Exponse (22)
U1' Public Works & Utiities . Wastewater Expense (22)
U1' Public Works & Utikties. Stormwater Expense (22)
GF Capital Costs - Gel\Dral Fund (police) (23)
Gf Capital Costs. Stroets & E~tronic5 (24)
ur CapItal Cosu; . Water System (25)
U,T Caprtal Costs - Wa&tow.r System (25)
U1' Capital Costs - Stormwater (25)
GF DebtSo,..,.ic., on GO O"bt(17)
t:rT Debt Sef\lice on R.".nu., BonctslLoans. (17)
TotaI;bpoAdi1Wes
Annual Nel Cash-Flow
Eftdlng-c~ f.lnanclat tlApact (2G)
Genoral Fund Net Financial Impact
Utilities. Net Financial Impact
Of" GIlnefetFlIflwMoftI
UT Ul.1Itt Syullm hem
City of Bremertan - SK1A Area AAlilexali0fl
Financial AssesmeAl
Financial impacts Scenano . Annexation (UHigh Growth")
~
27,220
49,721
122,554
95
17,898
85,063
35,.32
27,gtJ3
5a,749
3,012
2,372
5,079
<436 097
56,806
57,000
86,571
10,000
34,192
23,020
59.450
20,287
=
88,770
.a,568
53,733
131,876
'6
20,927
111,261
37,.50
61,~O
65,835
3,183
5,227
5,596
543244
37,870
58,710
133,753
10,300
36,139
SO,n9
65,506
l!ll1 Z2n
239,006 $ 395,295
66,682
57,865
138,7.0
100
23,217
11.,599
39,557
67,465
72,232
3,362
5,735
6,1-40
595 694
18,935
60,471
163,687
10,609
38,173
55,659
71,871
87,587
62,120
145,897
103
25,625
118,037
.1,756
73,7.3
78,955
3,&49
6,268
6,711
650 352
62,285
189,198
10,927
40,295
60,838
78,560
23,628
3.7 ,326 393,Ooa .39.05 442,103 1,800,083
88 no 150,236 156,289 208,2.9 367216
88,770 S 239,006 $ 395,295 $ 603,&4. S 970,760
(2,715)
91,485
26,57.
123,662
28,13~L 75,.51
128,151 132,798
1,.50,202
2,167,299
64,154
19.,87.
11,255
.2,510
66,279
85,585
28,138
463,710
819,951
86,69-4
280,522
=
603,544
109,307
66,504
156,443
107
6,713
28,157
121,578
<<,052
80,338
86,015
3,744
6,829
7,311
112,630
2,000,000
<46,-449
87,261
93,.28
3,9,(8
7,.17
7,9.1
<ill
970,760
131,870
71,019
167,491
110
30,817
125,226
1096,374
Lill ~
(.3,447) $ 160,163
155,303
75,670
179,061
113
16,616
33,612
128,982
225,259
48,9.9
109,528
101,208
.,161
9,310
8,603
11.7,760
68,061
206,741
11,941
47,236
90,361
100.702
29,851
337.872
892,765
203,610
160,163 $ 388,731 $ 657,159
165,854
37,756
179,63.
80,.60
191,17.
116
36,547
132,852
225,259
51,558
117,152
109,371
.,382
9,958
9,297
1215146
70,103
212,9<<
12,299
.9,753
96,650
108,824
30,747
337,672
919,192
228,568
337,672
946,717
268,428
~
388,731
W!
657,159
~
874,8.6
231,105
90,475
209,968
124
7,782
42,860
140,943
225,259
57,116
133,533
126,910
4,855
11,350
10,787
1,361,965
32,619
337,872
1,032492
329,473
1.30.,319 S 1,495,681
See "Noles to the SKIA Area Annexation (annexation. high growth scenario) . Financial Impact Assessment" for key assumptions and explanations.
269,224
60,249
4,350,605
7,236,213
613,079
200,720
11,593
44,823
71,990
92,961
23,518
28,882
1,910,484
5,630,334
168,936
8,250420
1,01.,207
S (.3,447) S
89,723
(1,103,930)
185,.76
43,092
219,81.
48,615
204,891
85,394
200,381
120
39,627
136,837
225,259
5<1,279
125,149
117,933
.,614
10,638
10,024
1,293,067
72,206
219,332
12,668
52,379
103,248
117,343
74,372
225,912
13,048
55,117
110,165
126,275
31,669
337,872
975,380
317,687
974,8-46
263,355
54,332
l!gQ
1,304,319
258,305
95,710
223,634
127
46,251
145,171
225,259
60,076
142,322
136,319
5,106
12,097
11,587
1.441,824
76,603
232,689
13,439
57,973
117,416
135,637
27,264
33,598
214,159
337,872
1,250,462
191,362
339,146
(147,767)
286,525
101,101
2021 ~ ~
1,495,681 $ 1,910,082 S 2,399244
346,151
112,374
237,931
131
4El,807
149,526
225,259
63,161
151,531
146,179
5,369
12,880
12,425
1,442,635
2,995,628
78,901
239,670
13,842
60,950
125,013
145,448
81,268
246,860
14,258
64,055
132,972
155,725
34,606
1,470,559 12,500
315,795
100,65-4
252,884
135
53,534
15.,012
253,270
66,378
161,178
156,508
5,642
13,700
13,303
1688,016
83,706
254,266
14,685
67,289
141,307
166,488
35,644
268,520
139
20,436
57,440
156,632
281,280
69,730
171,281
167,325
5,927
14,559
14,223
1.766,725
86,218
261,894
15,126
70,661
150,033
177,757
36,713
financial Impacts Scenaria
Annexation ("High Growth")
377,626
118,265
2024 2025
2,944.567 $ 3,506,589
410,256
124,333
284,866
143
9,021
61,533
163,391
261,280
73,224
181,858
178,650
6,224
15,458
15.185
1851.505
37,815
88,804
269,751
15,580
7.,175
159,167
189,551
31,606
38,949
301,952
148
65,819
168,293
281,280
76,865
192,930
190,504
6,53.
16,399
16,193
1944,721
91,468
277,843
16,047
77,836
168,726
201,893
~
4,155,480
444,078
130,583
315,409
152
70,307
173,342
281,280
80,659
2Q.4,516
202,908
6,856
17,384
17,247
2041,624
94,212
286,179
16,528
81,650
178,725
214,806
40,118
479,130
137.020
lQlI ~
4,861,785 $ 5,632,396
553,081
150,480
329,401
157
75,006
178,542
281,280
84,611
216,636
215,885
7,H12
18,414
18.350
2,147,015
97,039
294,764
17,024
85,622
189,184
228.311
41,321
515,451
143,651
348,615
363,679
161
166
10,458
85,067
189,415
79,922
183,898
281,280
281,280
88,727
229,31.
229,458
7.542
19,-4n
19,504
93,015
2.2,570
243,652
7,906
20,618
20,710
2,262,298
99,950
303,607
17,535
89,759
200,120
242,434
42,561
43,838
379,886 421,899 421,899 421,899 421,899 421,899 421,899 421,899
2,581 227 1 198,855 1,221402 1,289,483 1 295,830 1,335,319 1,376 -403 1,419 142
414,401 489,162 545,323 562,023 648,891 706,30. 770,611 843,156
1,910.082 $ 2,399,244 $ 2.94-4,567 S 3,506,589 S 4,155,480 S 4,881,785 i 5,632,396 $ 6,-475,552
383,617
30,784
.50,397
38,764
487,269
58,053
.96,943
65,080
576.5.0
72,351
626.429
79,875
682,950
87,562
7-47,437
95,720
..
(note 1) there are 40 total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the WA Dept of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton, and the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance.
Of this total, the WA Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses in the proposed annexation area
(all located in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales tax of $7. 1 million in 2007. The remainder
represent businesses that produce products or selVices that are not subject to the retail sales tax.
Future business growth is assumed to maintain this same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales
taxable businesses - in that it is assumed that eve/}' other business added to the area is subject to sales tax.
(note 2) initial value of $235,353 average relail taxable sales per business in Kilsap County per
"Washinglon State Almanac 2006-2007" increased by a factor of t.37 in recognition of Ihe type of
businesses anticipated to locate in this area - then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. The
WA State Dept of Revenue confirmed there were 22 businesses in the proposed annexation area which
had revenues subject to sales tax of $7. 1 million in 2007. This computes to an average of $322, 727 per
business which is just slightly more than the results provided by using the average retail taxable sales per
business in Kitsap County per 'Washington State Almanac 2006-2007" increased by a factor of 1.37.
(note 3) Development of fifteen 3.5 acre industriallretail business sites on average is assumed eve/}' five years
adding 15 businesses - each having a 35,000 Sq Ft commercial building. The assessed value of these
projected business site developments is assumed to be $2,783,200 (in 2008 dollars) per site.
This is based on $79.52/Sq Ft average cost for industrial facility structures per the International Code Council
Building Valuation Data - published Janua/}'-Februa/}' 2008. Taxable construction cosls are assumed to be
80% of the assessed value for purposes of computing sales tax and B&O lax impacts.
(note 4) Property tax increase for construction is held to tOday's dollar rate per $1, 000 A V - ignoring decreases in
the dollar rate per $1,000 of A V related to property value increases while also ignoring the City's permitted 1%
annual property tax amount increase.
BASE ANNEXA nON SCENARIO - HIGH GROWTH
LEASEHOLD TAX ESTIMATION
Escalated at 3%
(note 1) (note 2) 4.00% Cumulative
Leasehold Tax Land Development Bremerton Leasehold Tax Total Estimated 3%
Existing Subject to Port Leasehold Tax Additions From Bremerton Escalation
Year Businesses Lease Agreements Additional Leases New Development Leasehold Tax Rev Factor
2009 $ 47,201 63,000 $ 2,520 $ 2,520 $ 49,721 1.0000
2010 48,617 64,890 2,596 5,116 53,733 1.0300
2011 50,075 66,837 2,673 7,789 57,865 1.0609
2012 51,578 68,842 2,754 10,543 62,120 1.0927
2013 53,125 70,907 2,836 13,379 66,504 1 .1255
2014 54,719 73,034 2,921 16,300 71,019 1.1593
2015 56,360 75,225 3,009 19,309 75,670 1 .1941
2016 58,051 77 ,482 3,099 22,409 80,460 1.2299
2017 59,793 79,807 3,192 25,601 85,394 1.2668
2018 61,587 82,201 3,288 28,889 90,475 1.3048
2019 63,434 84,667 3,387 32,276 95,710 1.3439
2020 65,337 87,207 3,488 35,764 101,101 1.3842
2021 67,297 89,823 3,593 39,357 106,654 1 .4258
2022 69,316 92,518 3,701 43,058 112,374 1 .4685
2023 71,396 95,293 3,812 46,869 118,265 1.5126
2024 73,538 98,152 3,926 50,795 124,333 1.5580
2025 75,744 101,097 4,044 54,839 130,583 1.6047
2026 78,016 104,129 4,165 59,004 137,020 1.6528
2027 80,356 107,253 4,290 63,295 143,651 1.7024
2028 82,767 110,471 4,419 67,713 150,480 1.7535
(note 1) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a public lessor for the right to use
publicly owned tax-exempt property for private purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of providing governmental services. Of the
12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31% of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in
2007. The calculated amount that would have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes is the same as the amount calculated for
2007 and then escalated by 3% each year thereafter.
(note 2) Per Port of Bremerton staff, new development on the Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of
Port owned land with the developer paying for the improvements directly - paying property taxes on the improvements portion and the
Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the leasehold tax estimates include an expectation of new land lease arrangements for each
new business development in the projected period. Per Port staff the current lease payment amount for unimproved property is
$6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are ''pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For purposes
of this analysis it is assumed that each 3.5 acre new developmentjn the forecast period is unimproved property and the rate of
$6,000 per year per acre in 2008 dollars is used escalated 3% per year for future periods..
-:.
,-
~
ANNEXATION - "HIGH GROWTH" SCENARIO
Water System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
Construction Bud et - Prelimina
,.
13400 LF 100 $1,340,000
1 LS 5.0% $67,000
1 LS 3.0% $40,200
1 LS 5.0% $67,000
$1,514,200
LS 20.0% $302,840
$1,817,040
LS 8.6% $156,265
$1,973,305
15.0% $23,440
$1,996,745
16" TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM GOLF COURSE TO RESERVOIR
Mobilization
Tem ora Erosion/Sedimentation Control
Traffic Control
Subtotal
Construction Contin enc
Subtotal Construction Costs
Sales Tax
ANNEXATION - "HIGH GROWTH" SCENARIO
Wastewater System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
PHASE 1 - HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Trench Safety System 6,000 LF $2 $12,000
Complete MBR Plant, 0.5 MGD 100,000 aal $8 $800,000
SK-1 Reuse Pump Station 1 LS $550,000 $550,000
8-in HOPE Reuse Force Main 6,000 LF $140 $840,000
Winter Reuse Disposal 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Subtotal $3,202,000
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5% $160,100
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3% $96,060
Traffic Control 1 LS 5% $160,100
Subtotal $3,618,260
Construction ContinQency 1 LS 20% $723,652
Subtotal -Construction Costs $4,341,912
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.60% $373,404
Construction Budoet -Preliminary Desion Estimate $4,715,316
Enaineerina Design 1 LS 15% $707,297
Total Estimated Project Budget $5,422,614
Assumptions/Notes:
1) Pipe prices per linear foot include all bedding, backfill, excavation, soil removal, surface restoration, existing utility
2) No easements or land aquistion costs included. Pipelines, pump stations, etc. assumed in public rights of way.
,
ANNEXATION - "HIGH GROWTH" SCENARIO
Wastewater System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
PHASE 2 - HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
Item Quantitv Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Trench Safety System 0 LF $2 $0
Complete MBR Plant, 0.5 MGD 100,000 qal $8 $800,000
SK-1 Reuse Pump Station 0 LS $550,000 $0
8-in HOPE Reuse Force Main 0 LF $140 $0
Winter Reuse Disposal 0 LS $1,000,000 $0
Subtotal $800,000
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5% $40,000
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3% $24,000
Traffic Control 1 LS 5% $40,000
Subtotal $904,000
Construction Continqencv 1 LS 20% $180,800
Subtotal -Construction Costs $1,084,800
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.60% $93,293
Construction Budget -Preliminarv Design Estimate $1,178,093
Enqineerinq Desiqn 1 LS 15% $176,714
Total Estimated Project Budget $1,354,807
Assumptions/Notes:
1) Pipe prices per linear foot include all bedding, backfill, excavation, soil removal, surface restoration, existing utility
2) No easements or land aquistion costs included. Pipelines, pump stations, etc. assumed in public rights of way.
,_,j I')' "
NOTES
Financial Impact Assessment - SKIA Annexation
High Growth Scenario Notes
The City of Bremerton management has prepared projected financial impact assessment
information for the described annexation area with an assumption of high future growth in the
area - but less than the amount Kitsap County modeled in the SKlA Sub Area Plan. In the
preparation of this financial analysis, the City has made certain assumptions with respect to
conditions that may occur in the future. It is the City's belief that the projected financial
information was prepared on a reasonable basis. The City staff believe this analysis reflects the
best currently available estimates and judgments, and presents, to the best of management's
knowledge and belief, the expected course of action and the expected future financial impacts of
the proposed annexation with the assumption of higher future growth in the area. It should be
understood that this analysis is dependent upon future events - actual conditions may (and are
likely to) differ from those assumed herein.
The following pages represent explanatory notes for individual elements of the financial
assessment analysis, as well as principal considerations and assumptions made by the City in the
preparation of the financial impact information.
The following are the base and growth assumptions for the
High Growth Scenario:
Existing Businesses 40 total estimated current businesses in the proposed
annexation area based on data compiled from the
Washington State Department of Revenue and the Port
of Bremerton. Of this total, the Washington State
Department of Revenue has indicated that 22
businesses in the proposed annexation area (all located
in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales
tax of$7.1 million in 2007
Existing Households +/- 1 total current residential households in the
annexation area
Existing Residential Population Assuming 2.5 people on average per household this
equates to a population in the proposed annexation area
of approximately 2.5 +/- currently.
Future Development Assumption: Assumed development of fifteen parcels of3.5 acres
Acres & Businesses Increased each of industry every five years.
This results in the addition of fifteen new businesses on
average every five years.
Future Development Assumption: Development is assumed to be primarily located on
Location Port of Bremerton industrial park property with limited
development in the north petition area in this scenario.
I
'. ('. ,,"
Summary table of Business Growth and Acres Developed
over the 20-year time horizon for the High Growth Scenario:
All data complied to include North and South petitions and requests
1 High growth City of Bremerton scenario assumes that each new business will develop on an average
parcel size of about 3.5 acres. Scenario assumes 15 new businesses every five years with an expected
35,000 Commercial Sq Ft developed per 3.5 acre parcel. Data from KEDA 2007-2008 recruitment leads
indicate stron est interest for land develo ment in the 5 acre and below size cate 0
2 Puget Sound Regional Council assigns Manufacturing and Industrial employment growth at an
avera e of 1/ 825 SF. A Ran e of 550-1100
3 Records of typical industrial development indicate about 12.000 sq ft per acre
4 Acres developed were analyzed using 2006 aerial photos with City of Bremerton GIS and includes the
air ort runwa facilities.
Notes to High Growth Financial Assessment spreadsheet:
(1) Net fmancial impacts carried forward represents the prior year's ending cumulative
net financial impact.
(2) Property tax revenue for 2009 is based upon current assessor information for parcels
in the proposed annexation area (2008 valuations and tax rolls). Taxable assessed
values in 1,000's of dollars is then multiplied by $2.2181 (City of Bremerton regular
levy rate for 2008 of$1.9032/$1,000 A V and EMS levy rate for 2008 of
$0.3149/$1,000 A V). The property tax revenue is then increased by 1 % each year
thereafter starting from the base 2009 year. The property tax amounts in the base
annexation area are generally quite low for such a large land area but this is due to the
public properties in existence there (Port of Bremerton) which are not subject to a
property tax levy - and due to the large proportion of remaining properties being
2
" .:) ~ J
designated as open space or forest land status which substantially reduces the
property taxes on those parcels.
(3) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a
public lessor for the right to use publicly owned tax-exempt property for private
purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of
providing governmental services. Of the 12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City
receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31 % of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton
paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in 2007. The calculated amount that would
have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes
is the same as the amount calculated for 2007 and then escalated by 3 % each year
thereafter. In addition, Port of Bremerton staff indicates that new development on the
Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of Port owned land
with the developer paying for the improvements directly and paying property taxes on
the improvements portion - and the Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease
payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the lea~ehold tax estimates include an
expectation of new land lease arrangements for each new business development in the
projected period. Per Port staff the current lease payment amount for unimproved
property is $6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are
"pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For purposes of this analysis it is
assumed that each 3.5 acre new development in the forecast period is unimproved
property and the rate of $6,000 per acre per year in 2008 dollars is used and then
escalated by 3% each year thereafter.
(4) Admissions tax revenue is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any current
sources of admission revenues that exist or which would be anticipated to be
developed - which would be subject to the City's Admission tax.
(5) Parking tax is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any parking facilities
existing in the area or proposed to be developed in the future - which charge for such
services and would be subject to the City's Parking tax.
(6) Sales tax revenue includes revenues from existing (22 businesses currently reporting
taxable retail transactions to the DOR) and projected additional businesses. It is
assumed that fifteen businesses on average every five years will be added. There are
40 total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the W A Dept of Revenue, and the Port of Bremerton. Of this total,
the W A Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses in the proposed annexation
area (all located in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales tax in 2007.
The remainder represents businesses that produce products or services that are not
subject to the retail sales tax. Future business growth is assumed to maintain this
same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales taxable businesses - in
that it is assumed that every other business added to the area is subject to sales tax.
2009 tax revenues are computed using the assumption that taxable revenues would be
the same as the DOR reported occurred in 2007 for the area. As growth is modeled
to occur in the forecast period, the new businesses assumed to be subject to sales tax
are assumed produce taxable revenues equivalent to 1.37 times the average taxable
retail sales per business for Kitsap County ($235,353) per the "Washington State
Almanac 2006-2007" then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. Actual results
for the 22 businesses verified by the DOR for 2007 - validate the use of this
3
I ~ (', ',,-
'J
calculated value of retail sales revenue per business as the DOR actual average
computes to an average of$322,727 per business in the area - and 1.37 times the
Washington State Almanac information results in an average of$322,434. The City
tax rate is .00085 (1 % less .15% administrative fee to the County). The sales tax on
construction of future development in the proposed annexation area assumes the
projected new businesses result in the addition ofa 35,000 square foot Commercial
structure on a 3.5 acres parcel per business with construction costs estimated to be
$2,783,200 in 2008 dollars based on an average cost of$79.52/Sq Ft for industrial
facility structures as published in the January-February 2008 International Code
Council Building Valuation Data - of which the taxable construction costs is assumed
to be 80% of this amount. Construction values are escalated at 3% per year.
(7) B&O tax revenue is assumed to be zero. Recent changes to the City's B&O tax code
exempt businesses from the tax if they are located on industrially zoned Port
properties and all areas annexed into the City are exempt from B&O tax for a period
of three years for businesses located in the area at the time of annexation. This
analysis conservatively assumes that all projected growth in this higher growth
scenario would occur on Port of Bremerton owned property and would therefore be
exempt from the City B&O tax.
(8) Washington State distributes gas tax, liquor tax, and criminal justice funds to the City
on a per capita basis. The City's share of this distribution will increase with any
population added by this proposed annexation. The budgeted combined rate for 2008
is $37.88 per the State Department of Revenue. This amount is multiplied by the
population initially estimated to be included in the proposed annexation area (2.5).
The dollar amount per capita is then increased by 3% each year thereafter. No further
population growth is assumed as it is not expected that future development would be
residential.
(9) Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue in this high growth scenario is assumed to
come from limited sales transactions of privately owned. buildings situated on land
leased from the Port of Bremerton. Per Port of Bremerton staff, historical experience
suggests that approximately 2 such transactions occur in every 10 year period. For
this high growth scenario it is assumed that in addition to the amount projected in the
low growth scenario that one additional larger building is sold in each 10 year period.
The 0.5% tax is applied to an assumed sale of a 15,000 square foot building every
fifth year in the forecast period with the value estimated conservatively to be
$1,192,800 and one 35,000 square foot building every 7 years with the value
estimated conservatively at $2,783,200 in 2008 dollars based on an average cost to
construct of $79 .52/Sq Ft for industrial facility structures as published in the January-
February 2008 International Code Council Building Valuation Data as then escalated
by 3% in each year thereafter.
(10) Utility taxes are based on average annual power bills of $2,760 in 2008 dollars for a
typical business enterprise located on Port property (per Port of Bremerton staff) and
an estimated telephone service annual cost of $1 ,200 in 2008 dollars, and (per Waste
Management staff) an annual solid waste disposal service total cost of $80,851 in
2008 dollars for all existing businesses located in the proposed annexation area with
an average annual rate of $2,995 per business in 2008 dollars as then each multiplied
by the number of businesses projected to be added in future periods of the forecast
and escalated by 3% each year thereafter. Utility tax rates are 6% for electricity and
telephone, and 9.5% for solid waste disposal services. No revenue estimate is made
for utility taxes on services to residential accounts or for cable television services due
,
\....- -
4
> .' 1)1 \ 4l-'
to lack of residences identified in the proposed annexation area and no expectation of
residential development in the area in the future.
(11) In accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.06.020(a) - A general
facility charge (GFC) shall be charged on all new or expanded service connections to
the water, wastewater, and storm water utility systems. The calculation of the general
facility charge for water shall be based on the meter size to be installed for a new or
expanded water utility service. The calculation for the general facility charge for
wastewater shall be based on the number of equivalent residential unites) (ERU)
served. The calculation for general facility charges for stormwater shall be based on
the number of impervious surface units (ISUs) as defined in BMC 15.01.020. The
number ofISUs charged shall be based on the total impervious area divided by the
amount of impervious area in an ISU. The rates applied are per the current BMC.
The Port of Bremerton currently owns and operates its own wastewater utility. Under
this High Growth Scenario the capacity of the existing system will be exceeded and
additional conveyance and treatment facilities are required. It is assumed that the
City of Bremerton will assume ownership of the Port of Bremerton wastewater
system in 2009 and the City will begin to receive wastewater GFC's. This will allow
the City to receive revenue in years prior to any capital expenditures. The calculation
ofGFC's are based on the following assumptions.
· Water GFC' s are based on the GFC for a 1" water meter.
· Wastewater GFC's are based on the Commercial 1 GFC with an estimated
average of 4 ERU's per customer.
· Stormwater GFC's are based on 35,000 SF of billable impervious area or 14
ISU's per customer.
· All GFC's escalated at 3% per year.
(12) Mitigation costs to be paid by the Developer as determined through the development
review process and the BMC or as needed. For the purposes of this analysis the
water, wastewater, and storm water system capital improvements are assumed to be
financed through a combination of utility rate revenues, General Facility Charges (see
note 11), grant funding (see note 14), and low interest state loans offered by the
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) and Department of Ecology's DWSRF loan
program with a portion of that debt service obligation being covered through the
formation of a UUD covering all benefitted, unserved properties within the
boundaries of SKIA. No developer payments are assumed to be required for the
utility system capital projects in this high growth scenario.
(13) This analysis assumes the assumption oflow interest state loans offered by the Public
Works Trust Fund (PWTF) and the Department of Ecology. It is assumed that the
City's utility systems would provide a 15% local cash match from rate revenues for
each of these loans plus it is expected that there will be a grant or other contribution
of $2,000,000 with the remainder then financed for 20 years at an interest rate of
1.5%. See Note 17 for additional discussion of the projected debt financings. Of the
amount fmanced, it is expected that a UUD will be formed covering all unserved
properties benefited by the related capital improvements. It is assumed that 2/3rds of
the amount financed is expected to be provided for by the UUD assessments.
(14) Grants or other capital contributions of $2,000,000 are assumed in this high growth
scenario. There are competitive re-use grants available from Ecology, EDA grants
5
j, 1..-." I....
;)
available through PSRC and CTED, and potential developer contributions to
contribute to this $2,000,000 infusion of capital,
(15) Utility system rate revenues are computed in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the
BMC which establishes current utility fees, rates, and other charges. The Port of
Bremerton currently owns and operates its own wastewater utility. Under this High
Growth Scenario it is assumed the City of Bremerton will assume ownership of the
Port of Bremerton wastewater system in 2009. At that point the City will begin to
receive wastewater rate revenues. The utility rates in this analysis are based on the
following assumptions:
· Water rates are based on the fixed rate for a I" water meter and an average
annual water usage of 180 HCF which is the current average annual usage per
customer within the Olympic View Industrial Park.
· Stormwater rates are based on 35,000 SF of billable impervious area or 14
ISU's per customer.
· Wastewater rates are based on the fixed rate for a Commercial 1 account and
an average annual wastewater usage of 180 HCF.
· All fixed fees and commodity charges are escalated at 3% per year.
(16) The City General Fund imposes on its internal utility systems a payment in lieu of tax
- similar to the utility tax imposed on external utilities. The current rate is 8.5% of
utility system rate revenues for water, wastewater, and stormwater. This amount
represents revenue to the General Fund and is added to annual expenses of the utility
systems as noted in (19) below. This is an internal transfer between the City's utility
systems and the City's General Fund and is thus shown as both a receipt and an
expense in this analysis.
(17) This analysis assumes the assumption oflow interest state loans offered by the Public
Works Trust Fund (PWTF) and the Department of Ecology. It is assumed that the
City's utility 'systems would provide a 15% local cash match from rate revenues for
each of these loans with the remainder financed for 20 years at an interest rate of
1.5%. Low-interest loans from the state are competitive and there is no guarantee of
continued availability. There is also no certainty that subsidized rates will remain at
currently available levels. The City has been very successful in recent years in getting
support from these programs and our assumption is that will continue. The back up
option to subsidized loans for capital projects in this high growth scenario would be
revenue bonds issued by the combined Utility System of the City. The rates on this
type of debt vary but could be assumed for this analysis to be approximately 5.75%
compared to 1.5% for subsidized loans. For each million in par amount ofloan this
potential interest difference results in an additional annual expense of$27,177.
Loans in the amount of$1,450,202 and $4,350,605 mid year in 2013 and 2014
respectively, and $ 1,442,635 mid year 2021 are undertaken to cover the City's
portion of capital costs incurred net of payments by the Developer as described in
note (12), and other grants or capital contributions as described in note (14).
Proceeds are assumed to be approximately 100% of the par amount.
(18) Payment to Kitsap County for revenue sharing in accordance with the interlocal
agreement concerning revenue sharing upon annexation. Revenue Sharing payments
are based on three sources of revenue: 1) County's portion of the local retail sales tax
levied; 2) Ad Valorem property tax levied by the County pursuant to RCW 36.82.040
for establishment and maintenance of county transportation systems; and 3)
Admission tax levied by the County pursuant to Chapter 36.38 RCW. The combined
6
l'. )
",1 .-',.'.!\'
total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area
during the calendar year preceding annexation net of the same for the first full
calendar year following annexation = "County's Lost Revenue". The amount of
payment from Bremerton to the County is based on a three-year soft landing approach
with the year 1 payment equal to 75% of the County's Lost Revenue, year 2 payment
equal to 50%, and the third and final year being 25%. The estimated amount of
County lost revenue for these items is $71,000 of sales tax revenue based on the
DOR's reported taxable retail sales in this area of$7,100,000 in 2007, $4,741 in ad
valorem property tax levied for County roads per the County 2008 property tax
assessments for parcels in the proposed annexation area, and zero dollars for
admission tax as the City is not aware of any current sources of admission revenues
that exist.
(19) Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) assumed to be covered by an Interlocal
Agreement between the Bremerton Fire Department and the South Kitsap Fire and
Rescue ('SKFR') during the forecast period. Per information provided by South
Kitsap Fire and Rescue dated April 15, 2008, the total annual estimated impacts of the
proposed annexation would be a loss of revenue of $57,000 in 2008 dollars. This
analysis assumes that the City would negotiate an agreement for continued coverage
of this area by SKFR setting an initial compens().tion level at the estimated lost
revenue amount of $57,000 and then providing for cost of living increases in years
thereafter (which is assumed to be 3% each year thereafter in this analysis). Further
cost increases are not assumed in this scenario because service level demand is not
anticipated to change dramatically with the type of development expected in the
proposed annexation area.
(20) Police service and coverage of the current south Bremerton area, watershed area, and
the proposed annexation area is expected in combination to require an increase in
staffmg of a sector patrol unit - requiring 7 positions at a total annual cost (salary and
benefits) of$592,571 (2008 dollars) plus $100,000 in annual estimated associated
operational expenses. The proposed annexation area in this scenario while large
geographically is expected to generally be low in demand for these services due to the
type of development in the area. A smaller geographical area but an expected higher
demand will come from the anticipated large residential development in the existing
South Bremerton area. Given those expectations for the purposes of this analysis,
25% of the cost of the added personnel and operational expenses are assumed to be
attributed to this proposed annexation area for this higher growth scenario. The
computed annual expense is then increased by 3% each year thereafter. 25% of the
estimated cost to purchase 2 vehicles and computer equipment for these additional
personnel in the years 2009 and the replacement cost of those vehicles every five
years thereafter (escalated at 3% per year) is included in the capital costs as noted in
(23) below. It is expected that the additional personnel would be based out of the
existing police department building. Bringing new police officers on line requires a
period of time to recruit and train. It is assumed that in the first year (2009) a ramp
up to 50% of this annual expense will occur, rising to 75% in the second year (2010),
coming to full new operational levels by the beginning of the third year (2011).
(21) An estimated annual amount of $10,000 in 2008 dollars for electronics and street
maintenance costs was provided by the City Engineer. This amount is then escalated
by 3% per year for future years in this analysis.
(22) Utility system expenses are estimated based upon the 2008 budget relationship of
operating expenses to rate revenues charged. For the water, wastewater, and
stormwater system this computes to 88%, 74%, and 91 %, respectively. In addition to
7
)
J f I,t II ~~
the computation of operation and maintenance expense the total utility expense was
increased in each year by the amount of utility PILOT taxes computed to be
transferred to the General Fund.
(23) General Fund capital costs include police vehicle and equipment purchases necessary
to support the additional staffing needed to provide adequate service levels in the
proposed annexation area in combination with expanded service demands in the south
Bremerton area - as described more fully in note (20) above. Two police vehicles
and computer equipment are assumed to cost $81,148 (2008) in total (of which 25%
is allocated to this proposed annexation area) and are shown being replaced every
fifth year thereafter at an escalated price of 3 % per year.
(24) The proposed SKIA annexation area is served by transportation facilities currently
owned, operated and maintained by the State of Washington DOT (SR3), internal
streets owned and managed by the Port of Bremerton, and Lake Flora Road which is
under County jurisdiction. SR3 was recently reworked and widened by DOT to add
additional length to left turn lanes in the vicinity of the Port. The Belfair Bypass
project is expected to address the intersection of Lake Flora Rd. and SR3 within
SKIA and is a state project. The Port is pursuing the construction of the Cross-SKIA
connector Road to link SR3 and the north SKIA properties to Lake Flora Road east of
the airport. The first phase of that project is under design and the Port is planning to
pursue the issuance of bonds to support the $3.72 M cost of constmcting the first
phase in 2010 or 2011. It is assumed the final phase of this improvement would be
financed using a similar approach and that no City money would be necessary for
completion. Kitsap County is designing an upgrade of Lake Flora Road from SR3 to
J.M. Dickenson Road SW. This 3.6 mile improvement includes widening, paving
shoulders, and re-surfacing in addition to re-aligning the intersection at J.M.
Dickenson. This is an estimated $6.4 M project primarily addressing safety issues and
is not being pursued to increase capacity. Funding is expected to come from state
contributions, Transportation Impact Fees, and County gas tax. Recent discussions
with Kitsap County indicate they would continue to pursue this project independent
of potential annexation due to on-going safety concerns and accident history. The
County is not expecting contribution_of City revenues to be required on this project.
This "High Growth" scenario includes $25,000 (in 2008 dollars) per year in Street
and Electronic Capital to [mance any improvements to city streets within SKIA after
2014. This amount is escalated by 3% per year for these future years in the analysis.
The length of Lake Flora Road from SR3 to the SKIA boundary may be the only city
street within the proposed annexation at the outset. The Cross SKIA connector may
become a city street once completed. The $25,000 is a placeholder for any required
capital on these facilities.
(25) Capital costs for growth related infrastructure improvements are included as follows:
. WATER
There is sufficient existing water supply capacity in the 517 pressure zone serving
the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) to meet current and projected demands,
including fire flow under the "Low Growth" scenario through the 20-year
planning horizon. However, this "High Growth" scenario further accelerates
demand and requires additional transmission and supply by 2014. The 2008 cost
for this new 16-inch line is estimated at $2.0M and has been escalated to the years
of design and construction in 2013 and 2014 at 3%.
8
~) . ['Il' . I
It W ASTEW A TER
It is assumed in the "Low Growth" scenario that the Port of Bremerton would
continue to own, operate, and maintain their wastewater collection and treatment
system throughout the planning period. Any required improvements to this
system and all maintenance costs are assumed to be provided by Port of
Bremerton lease revenues and would not flow through City of Bremerton budgets.
In this "High Growth" scenario, wastewater flows are projected to exceed the
capacity of the current Port of Bremerton owned system (72,500 gpd) by 2014.
This scenario assumes the City would immediately assume responsibility for the
operation and maintenance ofthe Port of Bremerton's system and then develop,
fund, design, and construct a Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) treatment facility
located on the site of the current Port of Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) in 2014. The initial facility would be designed for 0.10 MGD and
expanded to 0.2 MGD by 2021. A new effluent pump station would also be built
at this location and highly treated water from this facility woUld be pumped
through an 8-inch HDPE force main 6,000 feet to the existing 8-inch City water
line currently running from Pump Station 3 to Reservoir 10. This water line would
have been replaced by a new l6-inch water transmission main in 2014 and would
therefore be available for wastewater service. The treated wastewater would flow
to the irrigation pond at Gold Mountain Golf Complex. It is assumed this treated
wastewater would be used for irrigating the city's two golf courses during the
spring, summer, and fall months. The 0.2 MGD maximum flow in the High-
Growth scenario represents approximately 40% of the 0.525 MGD average
summer water use for the golf courses. It is assumed the golf course would
continue to pay the Wastewater Utility for this water at the then current rate in
place for potable water and that revenue is therefore included in projected utility
rate revenues. Excess treated water (peaking in the winter months) would either
be re-used in another to be determined application, used to augment stream flows
in either the Union River or Gorst Creek basins, spray-irrigated on city Utility
Lands, or infiltrated into porous soils in the vicinity of the gravel mining
operations located on City property near OVIP. The estimated costs for
improvements contain one million dollars in capital to develop one or more of
those back-up options. The 2008 cost for these capital improvements are
estimated at $5.422M (design and construction in 2013 and 2014) and at $1.355M
(design and construction in 2020, 2021 and 2022) and has been escalated at a rate
of3% per year from 2008.
· STORMWATER
It is not anticipated that there will be any stormwater capital improvements
required for this annexation area. There are existing Stormwater facilities in place
that are owned by either the Port of Bremerton or WSDOT. Individual
development projects will be required to mitigate their on-site stormwater impacts
through the use of both standard and low impact development techniques. There
is no apparent need for large-scale regional stormwater conveyance, treatment or
detention facilities. Under all anticipated growth scenarios it is assumed that
stormwater GFC's and rate revenues would be sufficient to support the City's
NPDES Phase II compliance requirements for this new area.
9
. ).
_,'./-.l'"
(26) Ending cumulative financial impact represents the beginning net financial impact for
the period carried forward from prior periods plus the current period receipts less
current period expenditures.
10
"
'I I l\.
SKIA Annexation Financial Assessment
June 2008
Part IV of IV
Scenario C "SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth"
J"
..'
"
SKIA SUB-AREA
SCENARIO
FIGURE X
Legend
6" Force Main
.... 8" Gravity Main
8" Gravity Main
(Developer Ins/ailed)
B ::r Il2I 10" Force Main
= 10" Gravity Main
~!:.::?.::!l 12" Gravity Main
.. .... 14" Force Main
- 15" Gravity Main
"""""" 18" Gravity Main
18" Force Main
Existing Bremerton
Sewer Force Main
- UGA Boundary
...... City Boundary
i!EI Pump Station
e
"0 ''''' 3.000 4,500
F~'
ID~
SKIA WATER
SUB-AREA
PLAN SCENARIO
FIGURE X
Legend
.. 16" Water Main
a 1 Million Gallon
~ Reservoir
- UGA Boundary
· .... City Boundary
9
150 1,500 3,000 4,500
F."
.
"
...
LQ.t Upd.~
Jun~ 6, 2008
Net floanclaUmpa.;ts Corrted.FOI'W8fd (1)
Receipts :
Gf Property Tax Revenue (2)
Qf Los$ehGkl Tax Revenue (3)
GF Admt~61on~ Tal( Revenue (<4)
OF Parking 1M Revenue (5)
Gf Sales Tax Revenue (6)
Gf 8&0 Tax Revenue (7)
SF Per Capita Revenue Distributions from State (8)
Gf Real Estate Excise Tax on Property S.les (8)
Gf Ubllty Tax Revenue - ElecJT e:lephoneJSoIld W86te (10)
UT UtIlity GFC PlII'Iments (WaterfNas~ewsterIStorm) (11)
GF Developer Payment (12)
ur Developer PA~ment) (12)
UT Utikty Local,lmprovement Di&trict (UUQ) Payment (13)
ur Grana - W8ter Reuse, EDA, Capital Cl)lltnbullon~ (14)
lIT Utilily Rat. Revenues - Water (15)
UT UtIlity Rate Revenue&-Wastewster(15)
UT Utility Rati Rev.nUM- Stormwater(15)
GF Poyment in Lieu of Tax - Water UtiUty (Hi)
GF Payment in Weu o.f TID: - WasteW8tl1r Utility (16)
Gf Payment In Lieu of Tax - StGrrl'WMor Utility (16)
Gf Bond Proceed& - GO Bond5 (17)
UT Bond Procllelds - Revenue Bonda/Loans (17)
ToIoII Receipts
E>>pcndUwcs:
GF PaYlmnt to Kitsap County. R~venulJ Shilling Agmt (18)
GF Fire/EMS Setvic:e Expens.e (19)
Gf PoJice Service ExpeNoO (20)
BE Public Works & Utilities. Streets & Electronics (21)
U'f Pubbc Works & UtiiItiOl5 - Water Expense (22)
U'r Pub~c Works & Utilitios - Wastewater Expenee (22)
ur Public Works & Utillbes - Stormw.ter Expense (22)
Gf Capital Co&l& - General Fund (pOliclJ &. fll2'> (23)
Gf Capital Cosb;,. Streets & Electronic5 (24)
ur Capital Costs - Water Syatem (25)
U-T Capital CO$ta - Wastewater System (25)
ur Capital COliOlIi ~ Slormwater (25)
OF Debt Service 01\ GO Debt (11)
lJT Debt Service on Revenue Bond&lLoans (17)
TelatlExpendttules
Aftnwal:Net Cash Flow
Encting CumutaUve JlRanciaI- ~t (~
'"
U1
General Fund Net FlnancLallmpact
U~ititls Net Finsnclallmpect
Go""rIllFWM'em
~S'tl;tem""m
City of BremertGn . S~ Area AAnexation
FiRaflCial Assesment
Financiallrnpact5 Scenario ~ Annexation ("SKIA Sub Artla Plan")
lQQi!
2010
$ 378,5lW
1.7,319
50.656
2P.11 ~ 2013
627.337 $ 1,306,058 $ 1,572,346
297,2.8
68,145
290,6.7
98
23,078
267,288
46,680
86,198
112,451
3,968
7,327
9,558
1 192,222
37,870
58,710
267,506
10,300
45,046
71,113
111,889
602,434
220,835
62,315
308,090
100
26,540
275,307
50,539
97,662
127,407
<4,296
a,301
10,830
1,808,130
3,144322
18,935
60,471
367,37<4
10,609
.8,770
80,571
126,770
<450,20<4
1,677,008
13,561
713501 2,878,034
378,504 -1-16,833 478.nl 266.288
378,5Q.4 $ 827,337 $ 1,306,056 $ 1,572,346 $
76,608
51,161
276,701
95
16,373
259,503
43,003
75,319
Q.6,'258
3,655
6,.02
8,352
917429
1 051 267
164,264
28.,569
183,917
284,804
323,322
I"
30,189
283,566
54.587
109.737
143,168
<4,640
9,328
12.169
11 ,363,437 .
13115190
62,285
378,396
10,927
52,676
90,533
1<42.443
28,138
1,85.,839
11.513,910
383,594
14,562,374
1,-4<47,184
125,162 S
293,535 369,620
(27,2<47) (1,816,805)
376.Ei51
74,149
342,276
107
6,713
3-4,033
292,073
255,742
58,833
122,.48
158,742
5,001
10,408
13,578
2157.167
64,154
389,747
11,255
56,774
101,020
158,943
163,905
767.188
1,835.651
321,516
446.678
249,514
72,002
2014
125.162
459,1-41
80,334
~ lQ12 2017 2018 1Qli! 1Q1Q
446,678 $ 4,512.537 $ 3,647,466 $ 2,216,854 S 2,019,784 S 1,991.47<4 $
1,131.774
129,144
358,898
110
38,081
300,836
511,484
63,285
135,823
177,191
5,379
11,545
15,061
67,951
1<49,891
195,5-43
5,776
12,741
16,621
3,860,000
544,617
86,704
379,483
113
16,616
42,340
309,861
511.484
2,493039
68,061
413.483
11.941
65,573
123,660
19<4,565
.19,761
29,851
70,103
425,887
12,298
70,290
135,861
213,762
1,468,069
30,747
633,783
93,265
397,609
116
46,821
319,156
511,48.
72,839
164,680
214,83$
S,191
13,988
16,261
443,623
3,116,633
72,206
438,Ei64
12,668
75,231
148,683
233,935
1,891,644
31,669
521,909
327,609
793,027
4.547,446
726,144
100,023
419,952
120
51,533
328,731
511,484
77,960
180,222
235,111
6,627
15,319
19,964
1,827,726
4,736,855
32,619
2,150,266
327,809
899,484
4,933,925
622,010
106,983
439,703
124
7,782
56,485
338,593
555,585
83,323
196,548
256,410
7,082
16,707
21,795
1,313,084
5,113,799
561,188
451,824
13,048
80,.07
162,152
255,128
578,023
465,379
13,439
85,824
176,295
277 .380
54,528
33,598
609,063
1,544,805
6,219941
66,079
401,4<40
11,593
61,D70
112,05<4
176,305
.7,036
28,982
767.188
2,154,083
3,982,114
63,744
163,905
767.188
3,358110
(960,965) (1,43",957)
95,895 4,345
92,182
(289,252)
327,809
975,966
5,142,110
4,065,658 865,071 1,<430,612 197,069) 28,310
$ 4.512,537 $ 3,647,466 $ 2,216,654 S 2,019,784 S 1.991,47<4 S
138,047
(166,357)
See NNotflS to the SKIA Area Annexation (annexation - SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario) - Financial Impact AssessmentN for key assumptions and explanations.
56,806
57,000
173,143
10,000
<41,498
82,138
97,767
40,574
538925
103,624
274,680
921,492
114,153
1,024,707
121,538
463,944
127
61,688
348,751
609,063
650,676
627,335
1,000,527
88,937
213,691
278,774
7,560
18,164
23,696
9,009,240
13,377,<485
34,606
627,335
10,599,106
327,809
1,500,716
14,761.493
1,384,008
607,.466 $
301,460
(1,685,467)
2021
607,466 $
<485,449
131
67,152
359,213
2,621,773
1,000,527
94,813
231,686
302,250
8,059
19,693
25,691
6,574047
595,364
.79,340
13,6.2
91,495
191.141
300,739
35,644
646,155
1,975,618
327,809
1,500716
6,236,541
337,505
1,242,816
136,978
2022 2Qn
944,972 S 1.435,857
1,357,961
145,047
511,736
135
72,889
369,990
2,700,426
1,000,527
100,962
250,569
326,883
8,582
21,298
27,785
6 a89,042
613,225
493,720
14,258
97.428
206,719
325,249
36,713
665,539
2,034,887
327,809
1,500,716
6,398,157
490,885
535,137
139
20,436
78,910
381,089
2.,781,438
1,GOO,527
107,394
270,375
352,723
9,128
22,982
29,961
7,187330
631,622
506,532
1<4,685
103,635
223,059
350,959
37,815
685,508
2,095,934
327,609
1.500,716
6 565,504
621,626
.r
Flnanciallmpaets ScenariQ
Annexation ("SIiQA Sub Af'~acPlan")
~.
y
1,477,338
153,359
1QM 2.ill 2026 11m ~
2,057.683 $ 2,751,059 $ 3,661,0169 $ 4727266 $ 5,959,149
1,999,935
189,174
563,628
143
9,021
85,226
392,522
2,864,882
1,000,527
114,121
291,145
379,816
9,700
24,747
32,285
7,495,366
650,570
523,788
15,126
110,127
240,195
377,919
670,087
539.502
1$,580
11S.915
258,157
406,181
63,213
38,949
706,071
2,158,812
1,801,083
161,920
589,077
148
91,650
404,298
2,950,829
1,000,527
121,155
312,918
408,222
10,298
26,598
34,699
7826,587
40,118
727,253
2,223,576
327,609
1,500,716
6,918186
910,411
1,729,~35
170,737
619.843
152
98,795
416.427
3,039,354
1,000,527
128,509
335,735
437,988
10,923
28,537
37,229
8,169.736
690,190
555,687
16,0<47
124,011
276,881
435.798
<41,321
749,071
2,290,283
327,809
1,500,716
7103939
1,065,796
1,862,236
179,819
647,601
157
106,073-
428,919
136,195
359,639
469,173
11,577
30,569
39,880
3.130,534
1,000,527
144,226
384,875
501,834
12,259
32,697
42,658
661,027
725,486
327,809
1,500,716
6801,992
693,376
8.528,139
710,896
572,357
16,528
131,428
296,702
466,627
42,561
771,543
2,358.992
327,809
1,500,716
7.296258
1,231,883
161
166
10,458
121,689
455,041
113,700
441,787
3,224,450
1,000,527
152,616
.'0,890
536,03-4
12,872
34,926
45,563
8.919,927
732,223-
589,528
17,024
139,178
317,357
499,325
754,189
607,214
17,535
147,274
338,984
53~,354
43,838
794,689
2.429,761
327,809
1,500,716
7,495,363-
1,424,564
<418,687
(81,181)
844,972 $ 1.435,857 $ 2,057,683 $ 2,751,058 $ 3,661,489 $ 4.727,266 $ 5,959,149 $ 7,383,713
1,389,784
34,779
557,147
(66,262)
672,650
(50.824)
726,226
(34,850)
926,731
(18,321)
1.067,017
(1,220)
1,215.411
16,472
BASE ANNEXA liON SCENARIO - SKIA SUB AREA PLAN
RETAIL SALES, 8&0, AND PROPERTY TAX INCREASES ESTIMATION
(note 2)
(note 1) Average 0.125% (note 3) 0.85% 0.125% (note 4)
# of Businesses wi # of Businesses wi Taxable Retail Estimated 0.85% Bremerton Development Bremerton Bremerton Total Total Property 3%
Revenues Subject Revenues Not Subject Sales Per Taxable Bremerton Retail 8&0 Construction Sales Tax on Retail 8&0 on Bremerton Bremerton Tax Increase Escalation
Year To Sales Tax To Sales Tax Total Business Retail Sales Sales Tax Tax Costs Construction Construction Sales Tax Rev 8&0 Tax Rev from Const Factor
2009 25 20 45 $ 322.434 $ 8,060,840 68,517 Exempt $ 30,615,200 $ 208,183 Exempt $ 276,701 Exempt $ 67,908 1.0000
2010 27 23 50 332,107 8,966,879 76,218 Exempt 31,533,656 214.429 Exempt 290,647 Exempt 69,945 1.0300
2011 30 25 55 342,070 10,262,095 87,228 Exempt 32.479,666 220,862 Exempt 308,090 Exempt 72,043 1.0609
2012 32 28 60 352,332 11,274,621 95,834 Exempt 33.454,056 227.488 Exempt 323,322 Exempt 74,204 1.0927
2013 35 30 65 362,902 12,701,565 107,963 Exempt 34.457,677 234,312 Exempt 342,276 Exempt 76,431 1.1255
2014 37 33 70 373,789 13,830,190 117,557 Exempt 35,491.408 241.342 Exempt 358,898 Exempt 78,723 1.1593
2015 40 35 75 385,003 15.400,104 130,901 Exempt 36,556,150 248,582 Exempt 379.483 Exempt 81,085 1.1941
2016 42 38 80 396,553 16,655,212 141,569 Exempt 37,652,834 256,039 Exempt 397,609 Exempt 83,518 1.2299
2017 45 40 85 408.449 18,380,216 156,232 Exempt 38,782,419 263,720 Exempt 419,952 Exempt 86,023 1.2668
2018 47 43 90 420,703 19,773,028 168,071 Exempt 39,945,892 271,632 Exempt 439,703 Exempt 88,604 1.3048
2019 50 45 95 433,324 21,666,190 184,163 Exempt 41,144,269 279.781 Exempt 463,944 Exempt 91,282 1.3439
2020 52 48 100 446,324 23,208,823 197.275 Exempt 42,378,597 288,174 Exempt 485,449 Exempt 94,000 1.3842
2021 55 50 105 459,713 25,284,228 214,916 Exempt 43,649,955 296,820 Exempt 511,736 Exempt 96,820 1.4258
2022 57 53 110 473,505 26,989,764 229.413 Exempt 44,959.453 305,724 Exempt 535,137 Exempt 99,725 1.4685
2023 60 55 115 487,710 29,262,586 248,732 Exempt 46,308,237 314,896 Exempt 563,628 Exempt 102,716 1.5126
2024 62 58 120 502,341 31,145,146 264,734 Exempt 47,697,484 324,343 Exempt 589,077 Exempt 105,798 1.5580
2025 65 60 125 517,411 33,631,734 285,870 Exempt 49,128.409 334,073 Exempt 619,943 Exempt 108,972 1.6047
2026 67 63 130 532,934 35,706,553 303,506 Exempt 50,602,261 344,095 Exempt 647,601 Exempt 112,241 1.6528
2027 70 65 135 548,922 38.424,515 326,608 Exempt 52,120,329 354,418 Exempt 681,027 Exempt 115,608 1.7024
2028 75 65 140 565,389 42.404,197 360,436 Exempt 53,683,939 365,051 Exempt 725,486 Exempt 119,076 1.7535
(note 1) there are 40 total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the WA Dept of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton, and Ihe Kitsap Economic Development Alliance.
Of this total, the WA Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses In the proposed annexation area
(all located in the South Petition area) had revenues subject 10 sales lax of $7. 1 million in 2007. The remainder
represent businesses that produce products or services thai are nol subjecllo Ihe retail sales lax.
Future business growth is assumed to maintain this same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales
laxable businesses - In that It is assumed that every other business added to the area Is SUbject to sales tax.
(note 2) initial value of $235,353 average retail taxable sales per business In Kitsap County per
"Washington State Almanac 2006-2007" increased by a factor of 1.37 in recognition of the type of
busmesses anticipated to locate in this area - then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. The
WA State Dept of Revenue confirmed there were 22 businesses in the proposed annexation area which
had revenues subject to sales tax of $7. 1 million In 2007. This computes to an average of $322, 727 per
business which IS just slightly more than the results provided by using the average retail taxable sales per
business In Kitsap County per "Washington State Almanac 2006-2007" increased by a factor of 1.37.
(note 3) Development of twenlyfive 5.5 acre industriallretail business sites on average is assumed every five years
adding 25 bllsmesses - each having a 77,000 Sq Ft commercial bUilding. The assessed value of these
projected business site developments is assumed to be $6,123,040 (in 2008 dollars) per site.
This is based on $79.52/Sq Ft average cost for industrial facility structures per the International Code Council
Building Valuation Data - pUblished January-February 2008. Taxable construction costs are assumed to be
80% of the assessed value for purposes of computing sales tax and B&O tax impacts.
(note 4) Propelty tax increase for construction is held to today's dollar rate per $1, 000 A V - ignoring decreases in
I/le doUar rate per $1.000 of AV related to property value increases while also ignoring the City's permitted 1%
annual property tax amount increase.
."
1.
'"
.r
BASE ANNEXATION SCENARIO - SKIA SUB AREA PLAN ..
""
LEASEHOLD TAX ESTIMATION
Escalated at 3%
(note 1) (note 2) 4.00% Cumulative
Leasehold Tax Land Development Bremerton Leasehold Tax Total Estimated 3%
Existing Subject to Port Leasehold Tax Additions From Bremerton Escalation
Year Businesses Lease Agreements Additional Leases New Development Leasehold Tax Rev Factor
2009 $ 47,201 99,000 $ 3,960 $ 3,960 $ 51,161 1.0000
2010 48,617 101,970 4,079 8,039 56,656 1.0300
2011 50,075 105,029 4,201 12,240 62,315 1.0609
2012 51,578 108,180 4,327 16,567 68,145 1.0927
2013 53,125 111 ,425 4,457 21,024 74,149 1.1255
2014 54,719 114,768 4,591 25,615 80,334 1.1593
2015 56,360 118,211 4,728 30,343 86,704 1 .1941
2016 58,051 121,758 4,870 35,214 93,265 1.2299
2017 59,793 125,410 5,016 40,230 100,023 1.2668
2018 61,587 129,173 5,167 45,397 106,983 1 .3048
2019 63,434 133,048 5,322 50,719 114,153 1.3439
2020 65,337 137,039 5,482 56,200 121,538 1.3842
2021 67,297 141,150 5,646 .61,846 129,144 1.4258
2022 69,316 145,385 5,815 67,662 136,978 1.4685
2023 71,396 149,746 5,990 73,652 145,047 1.5126
2024 73,538 154,239 6,170 79,821 153,359 1.5580
2025 75,744 158,866 6,355 86,176 161,920 1.6047
2026 78,016 163,632 6,545 92,721 170,737 1.6528
2027 80,356 168,541 6,742 99,463 179,819 1.7024
2028 82,767 173,597 6,944 106,407 189,174 1.7535
(note 1) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a public lessor for the right to use
publicly owned tax-exempt property for private purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of providing governmental services. Of the
12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31% of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in
2007. The calculated amount that would have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes is the same as the amount calculated for
2007 and then escalated by 3% each year thereafter.
(note 2) Per Port of Bremerton staff, new development on the Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of
Port owned land with the developer paying for the improvements directly - paying property taxes on the improvements portion and the
Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the leasehold tax estimates include an expectation of new land lease arrangements for each
new business development in the projected period. Only the number of new businesses modeled in the "High Growth" scenario are
considered to be developed on Port of Bremerton Industrial Park properties - the additional business growth beyond that amount in
this "SKIA Sub Area Plan" scenario are assumed to be developed outside of the Port of Bremerton properties and therefore are not
subject to lease agreements or leasehold tax payments accordingly. Per Port staff the current lease payment amount for unimproved
property is $6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are "pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For
(
t'. ;
ANNEXATION - "SKIA SUB AREA PLAN" SCENARIO
Water System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
!t~_ . :. j",@: ~~tilt ~al~~iIfQ~!(~O{_1
16" TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM GOLF COURSE TO RESERVOIR 13400 LF 100 $1,340,000
Mobilization 1 LS 5.0% $67,000
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3.0% $40,200
Traffic Control 1 LS 5.0% $67,000
Subtotal $1,514,200
Construction Continoency 1 LS 20.0% $302,840
Subtotal Construction Costs $1,817,040
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $156,265
Construction Budget - Preliminary Design Estimate $1,973,305
Engineering Design 15.0% $23,440
Total Estimated Project BudQet $1,996,745
"XL ,~ _J~
NEW STORAGE RESERVOIR 1000000 oal 1.2 $1,200,000
Mobilization 1 LS 5.0% $60,000
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3.0% $36,000
Traffic Control 1 LS 5.0% $60,000
Subtotal $1,356,000
Construction Contingency 1 LS 20.0% $271,200
Subtotal Construction Costs $1,627,200
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $139,939
Construction Budget - Preliminary Design Estimate $1,767,139
Enoineerino Desion 1 LS 15.0% $265,071
Total Estimated Project Budget $2,032,210
,_. -~ ;;:!!:L. -. _.~. -- _.
16' DISTRIBUTION LOOP AROUND SOUTH END 29500 LF 100 $2,950,000
Mobilization 1 LS 5.0% $147,500
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3.0% $88,500
Traffic Control 1 LS 5.0% $147,500
Subtotal $3,333,500
Construction Contingency 1 LS 20.0% $666.700
Subtotal Construction Costs $4,000,200
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $344,017
Construction Budget - Preliminary Design Estimate $4,344,217
Engineering Design 1 LS 15.0% $51,603
Total Estimated Project BudQet $4,395,820
r
ANNEXATION. "SKIA SUB AREA PLAN" SCENARIO
Wastewater System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
PHASE 1 . SKIA SUB AREA PLAN
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
;..-
'.,
SKIA SK-1 Pump Station and Force Main to Gorst
1~~4r:i~Mt&\~~~.IJiii1j'i~~~~t~~~ r~~gKontylr~ ii~~liJiilit~~ ;~!~Jiiit!~A~t~ ~1:;};tl1o.,t~li~O:~t{~~l~
Trench Safety System 28,400 LF $2 $56,800
15-in Gravity PVC Pipe 10,200 LF $170 $1,734,000
18-in Gravity PVC Pioe 5,600 LF $180 $1,008,000
14-in HOPE Sewer Force Main 12,600 LF $170 $2,142,000
48-in Manhole . 50 EA $4,500 $225,000
SK-1 Pumo Station 1 LS $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Mob ilizati on/Demobi lization 1 LS 5% $343,290
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3% $205,974
Traffic Control 1 LS 3% $205,974
Subtotal $7,621,038
Construction Contingency 1 LS 20% $1,524,208
Subtotal - Construction Costs $9,145,300
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $786,496
Construction Budaet - Preliminary Oesian Estimate $9,932,000
Enqineering Desiqn 1 LS 15% $1,490,000
Total Estimated Project Budget $11,422,000
Assumptions/Notes:
1) Pipe prices per linear foot include all bedding, backfill, excavation, soil removal, surface restoration,
existing utility relocation/avoidance allowance, and pipe costs.
2) No easements or land aquistion costs included. Pipelines and pump stations assumed in public
rights of way.
ANNEXATION - "SKIA SUB AREA PLAN" SCENARIO
Wastewater System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
PHASE 2 - SKIA SUB AREA PLAN
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
SB-3 Pump Station and Garst to WWTP Force Main
:~~~~t~S~~~..tfgSi!t'&rn~~"~~iI:~I",'}:?l~~1i\~ ~~tl'uaiitiJy~~ m~~1\J,.Qi(1W~~i~ ~'111U1ilt~R~'i'E ~%r!~mQt~J~~J>:sJ,~3lifii,~
. ~". "', . -.r ., _ _~ ~ >...,~
Trench Safety System 11 ,100 LF $2 $22,200
18-in HOPE Sewer Force Main 11,100 LF $235 $2,608,500
S8-3 Pump Station 1 LS $2,600,000 $2,600,000
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5% $131,535
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3% $78,921
Traffic Control 1 LS 10% $263,070
Subtotal $5,704,226
Construction Continoencv 1 LS 20% $1,140,845
Subtotal - Construction Costs $6,845,100
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $588,679
Construction Budget. Preliminary Design Estimate $7,434,000
Engineering Desion 1 LS 15% $1,116,000
Total Estimated Project Budget $8,550,000
Assumptions/Notes:
1) Pipe prices per linear foot include all bedding, backfill, excavation, soil removal, surface restoration,
existing utility relocation/avoidance allowance, and pipe costs.
2) No easements or land aquistion costs included. Pipelines and pump stations assumed in public
rights of way.
....
~.
....
.r
ANNEXATION - "SKIA SUB AREA PLAN" SCENARIO
Wastewater System Estimated Capital Improvements and Costs
PHASE 3 - SKIA SUB AREA PLAN
(Expressed in 2008 Dollars)
'"
SKIA Sewer
(fJI~!\i~~~'l1!~~1."~lt~IDj~~~~1i~~ ~1tt~ya'QtftVs:t ~.~_~ftil~'~ I(IJJ.)iitr~p:itll "''''~]''''f''I~~''''''''f'''~~
~ ,)~ Jt. ,t&S~J&t,;' d .
Trench Safety System 39,700 LF $2 $79,400
8-in Gravity PVC Pipe 8,400 LF $150 $1,260,000
10-in Gravity PVC Pipe 9,800 LF $155 $1,519,000
12-in Gravity PVC Pipe 5,900 LF $160 $944,000
15-in Gravity PVC Pipe 4,400 LF $170 $748,000
6-in HDPE Sewer Force Main 3,600 LF $125 $450,000
1 O-in HDPE Sewer Force Main 7,600 LF $150 $1,140,000
48-in Manhole 88 EA $4,500 $396,000
SK-2 Pump Station 1 LS $1,100,000 $1,100,000
SK-3 Pump Station 1 LS $450,000 $450,000
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5% $404,320
Temoorary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 1 LS 3% $242,592
Traffic Control 1 LS 3% $242,592
Subtotal $8,975,904
Construction Continqency 1 LS 20% $1,795,181
Subtotal - Construction Costs $10,771,100
Sales Tax 1 LS 8.6% $926,315
Construction Budqet - Preliminary Desion Estimate $11,698,000
Enqineerinq Desiqn 1 LS 15% $1,755,000
Total Estimated Project Budqet $13,453,000
Assumptions/Notes:
1) Pipe prices per linear foot include all bedding, backfill, excavation, soil removal, surface restoration,
existing utility relocation/avoidance allowance, and pipe costs.
2) No easements or land aquistion costs included. Pipelines and pump stations assumed in public
rights of way.
NOTES
Financial Impact Assessment - SKIA Annexation
SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Scenario Notes
The City of Bremerton management has prepared projected financial impact assessment
information for the described annexation area with an assumption of high future growth in the
area in the amount Kitsap County modeled in the SKIA Sub Area Plan. In the preparation of this
financial analysis, the City has made certain assumptions with respect to conditions that may
occur in the future. It is the City's belief that the projected financial information was prepared
on a reasonable basis. The City staff believe this analysis reflects the best currently available
estimates and judgments, and presents, to the best of management's knowledge and belief, the
expected course of action and the expected future financial impacts of the proposed annexation
with the assumptions of Kit sap County's SKIA Sub Area Plan in the area. It should be
understood that this analysis is dependent upon future events - actual conditions may (and are
likely to) differ from those assumed herein.
The following pages represent explanatory notes for individual elements of the financial
assessment analysis, as well as principal considerations and assumptions made by the City in the
preparation of the financial impact information.
The following are the base and growth assumptions for the
SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Scenario:
Existing Businesses 40 total estimated current businesses in the proposed
annexation area based on data compiled from the
Washington State Department of Revenue and the Port
of Bremerton. Of this total, the Washington State
Department of Revenue has indicated that 22
businesses in the proposed annexation area (all located
in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales
tax of$7.1 million in 2007
Existing Households +/ - I total current residential households in the
annexation area
Existing Residential Population Assuming 2.5 people on average per household this
equates to a population in the proposed annexation area
of approximately 2.5 +/- currently
Future Development Assumption: Assumed development of 25 parcels of 5.5 acres each
Acres & Businesses Increased of industry every five years.
This results in the addition of twenty five new
businesses on average every five years.
Future Development Assumption: Development in the "High Growth" scenario was
Location assumed to be primarily located on Port of Bremerton
industrial park property with limited development in
the north petition area. Development in this scenario
that is over and above the amount modeled in the
"High Growth" scenario is assumed to be primarily
located outside of the Port of Bremerton industrial park
property in areas currently generally designated as
open space or forest land status.
I
(
.' "
" ,'"
~
Summary table of Business Growth and Acres Developed
over the 20-year time horizon for the SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Scenario:
Year Businesses 2 Employees Commercial Sq Ft 4 Acres Developed
%:.~2'QOcili It"':~~~<r~:5J't1ll?ltl"~~ ~!1~~-r4:a~~ ~f~"~~361t'J2!J\7.~ ~llK~[~~
f;1i:~l ";"'&~~",.~4Q~ W~bO """~~~ ~#,. . '''.' _"",.,L:,__.... L~...
2009 45 905 746,217 521.39
2010 50 1,371 1,131,217 548.89
2011 55 1,838 1,516,217 576.39
2012 60 2,305 1,901,217 603.89
~2011\31 ~'1i~~""~ t~~~2*~1riii!l ~lii\lr"~'."""2r~ _~~~1ft.~1\\
~'.:':.~65..' ~~;,,:""~. -'.:;, .'~f2Jtl?ti1~
"..,.....""", ..~,-.,~, ~._ ~:f\~ ., ~_., _"'..~..~~ . ~......'..~..l1L~ ;o/__~l~-'" _ ~\ .'.< " ~'\!_.:.:i_.t_~
2014 70 3,238 2,671,217 658.89
2015 75 3,705 3,056,217 686.39
2016 80 4,171 3,441,217 713.89
2017 85 4,638 3,826,217 741.39
~1~Q~'Iij~ ~(fl~l';,i;}"_90~ 1~"'~'~.~~~1i'Q&i ~~~2a~1E2ffffi 1r.~~]6'8f8"9:1
ii,,,", '" ,,' ,~m?" _ _ _~, ~ 1~lliji~. k,' J""L...".3 ,,~'~--"A _~. ;tS~.. _-' <I_~' :.i'.~ ,...J,.L._. ". ~.~-.~;&-o&.C ~ ." '. ~ ~.". ",,~_'t" _'--._~"--,........d
2019 95 5,571 4,596,217 796.39
2020 100 6,038 4,981,217 823.89
2021 105 6,505 5,366,217 851.39
2022 110 6,971 5,751,217 878.89
~~'E2023'j ~1l~~_j~1:s1 ~1W"~..,~1f~4311 ~~~6iWt361'~fi,iI ~~".~~"W'..-~6K...~
.,W~.;". '.:-!If\Iili ~fu..:~, ~. 'C. ~",.::~ ~ . . .gO ~39..
'-I'H"lt ......."il .....j~, <".." ~. , '... __,. .\, . "J. .,~;.,_j.~ . ~."..>><..,_ . ~. ,~~,;e_ .............._ '"
2024 120 7,905 6,521,217 933.89
2025 125 8,371 6,906,217 961.39
2026 130 8,838 7,291,217 988.89
2027 135 9,305 7,676,217 1016.39
'""'~":~"""<l!'''w.i_''~.~''~#''''-~~~~'''_~'>~111''~'''~__
.'. .. .'. ' , .v,' ., . '" ~- <'" _ O;/il' _.J., '" ~ '-. '.' ;v , ... _~ , . ,. , ,
~~;w2Q2,8h -. 'f!t",. ~-;:';"i~1~Q,~ ,~!ii~~_:,i:. .' '~':,">?~~;~1f:'1~ [~hl~..,~...::c,"";',,",~.QL. .~~~~
20 year
~rowth* 100 9,333 7,700,000 550
*This modeling is intended to as closely match Kitsap County SKIA Sub-Area Plan Data of 550
Acres Developed and 9,350 emplovees
All data compiled to include North and South petitions and requests
1 The SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario assumes that each new business will develop on an average parcel
size of 5.5 acres. Data from KEDA 2007-2008 recruitment leads indicate strongest interest for land
development in the 5 acre and below size category but in order to model closely to the growth in the
Kitsap County SKIA Sub Area Plan a slightly larger parcel size of 5.5 acres is necessary to yield the same
total development expectations over the 20 year period of time.
2 Puget Sound Regional Council assigns Manufacturing and Industrial employment growth at an average
of 1/ 825 SF. (A Ranae of 550.1100)
3 Records of typical industrial development indicate about 12,000 sq ft per acre - for this high scenario it
was assumed that there is increased opportunity for more intense multi-story buildings to be
accommodated on a site and therefore an averaqe of 14,000 Sa ft per acre is assumed.
4 Acres developed were analyzed using 2006 aerial photos with City of Bremerton GIS and includes the
airport runway facilities.
2
Notes to SKIA Sub Area Plan Growth Financial Assessment spreadsheet:
(I) Net financial impacts carried forward represents the prior year's ending cumulative
net financial impact.
(2) Property tax revenue for 2009 is based upon current assessor information for parcels
in the proposed annexation area (2008 valuations and tax rolls). Taxable assessed
values in 1,000's of dollars is then multiplied by $2.2181 (City of Bremerton regular
levy rate for 2008 of$1.9032/$1,000 A V and EMS levy rate for 2008 of
$0.3149/$1,000 A V). The property tax revenue is then increased by 1 % each year
thereafter starting from the base 2009 year. The property tax amounts in the base
annexation area are generally quite low for such a large land area but this is due to the
public properties in existence there (Port of Bremerton) which are not subject to a
property tax levy - and due to the large proportion of remaining properties being
designated as open space or forest land status which substantially reduces the
property taxes on those parcels. As buildings are constructed in the forecast period
property tax is increased as described in note (3). In this scenario growth does occur
in areas that are currently designated as open space or forest land status but this
financial impact analysis conservatively ignores the potential positive impacts of
these lands converting out of these substantially property tax exempt statuses to a
fully taxable status. There is insufficient data available to meaningful project the
property valuations that would be applied at that time and so it is conservatively
ignored in this analysis.
(3) Leasehold tax revenue is a state excise tax of 12.84% on rent or lease payments to a
public lessor for the right to use publicly owned tax-exempt property for private
purposes. The purpose of the tax is to have private users of public tax-exempt
property share with fee simple property owners who pay property taxes - the costs of
providing governmental services. Of the 12.84% tax imposed by the state, the City
receives an allocation of a 4% portion (or 31 % of the total) for areas with in the
incorporated City. According to the Department of Revenue, the Port of Bremerton
paid $151,515 for leasehold excise taxes in 2007. The calculated amount that would
have been apportioned to the City had this area been incorporated is $47,201. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 2009 revenues from leasehold excise taxes
is the same as the amount calculated for 2007 and then escalated by 3% each year
thereafter. In addition, Port of Bremerton staff indicates that new development on the
Port property would most likely be lease arrangements for the use of Port owned land
with the developer paying for the improvements directly and paying property taxes on
the improvements portion - and the Port withholding leasehold taxes on the land lease
payments. New building construction is therefore included in the calculated
estimates of future property taxes, while the leasehold tax estimates include an
expectation of new land lease arrangements for each new business development in the
projected period. Only the number of new businesses modeled in the "High Growth"
scenario are considered to be developed on Port of Bremerton Industrial Park
properties - the additional business growth beyond that amount in this "SKIA Sub
Area Plan" scenario are assumed to be developed outside of the Port of Bremerton
properties and therefore are not subject to lease agreements or leasehold tax payments
accordingly. Per Port staff the CUlTent lease payment amount for unimproved
property is $6,000 per year per acre and $12,000 per year per acre for sites that are
"pad ready" or improved to a limited extent. For purposes of this analysis it is
assumed that there are three 5.5 acre new developments each year on Port of
Bremerton industrial park properties in the forecast period and that it is unimproved
{
" "
3
!~ l,
)
property therefore the rate of $6,000 per acre per year in 2008 dollars is used and then
escalated by 3 % each year thereafter.
(4) Admissions tax revenue is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any current
sources of admission revenues that exist or which would be anticipated to be
developed - which would be subject to the City's Admission tax.
(5) Parking tax is assumed to be zero. The City is not aware of any parking facilities
existing in the area or proposed to be developed in the future - which charge for such
services and would be subject to the City's Parking tax.
(6) Sales tax revenue includes revenues from existing (22 businesses currently reporting
taxable retail transactions to the DOR) and projected additional businesses. It is
assumed that fifteen businesses on average every five years will be added. There are
40 total estimated businesses currently in the proposed annexation area based on data
compiled from the W A Dept of Revenue, and the Port of Bremerton. Of this total,
the W A Dept of Revenue has indicated that 22 businesses in the proposed annexation
area (all located in the South Petition area) had revenues subject to sales tax in 2007.
The remainder represents businesses that produce products or services that are not
subject to the retail sales tax. Future business growth is assumed to maintain this
same approximate relationship of sales taxable to non-sales taxable businesses - in
that it is assumed that every other business added to the area is subject to sales tax.
2009 tax revenues are computed using the assumption that taxable revenues would be
the same as the DOR reported occurred in 2007 for the area. As growth is modeled
to occur in the forecast period, the new businesses assumed to be subject to sales tax
are assumed produce taxable revenues equivalent to 1.37 times the average taxable
retail sales per business for Kitsap County ($235,353) per the "Washington State
Almanac 2006-2007" then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter. Actual results
for the 22 businesses verified by the DOR for 2007 -validate the use of this
calculated value of retail sales revenue per business as the DOR actual average
computes to an average of $322,727 per business in the area - and 1.33 times the
Washington State Almanac information results in an average of$313,019. The City
tax rate is .00085 (1 % less .15% administrative fee to the County). The sales tax on
construction of future development in the proposed annexation area assumes the
projected new businesses result in the addition of a 77,000 square foot Commercial
structure on a 5.5 acres parcel per business with construction costs estimated to be
$6,123,040 in 2008 dollars based on an average cost of$79.52/Sq Ft for industrial
facility structures as published in the January-February 2008 International Code
Council Building Valuation Data - of which the taxable construction costs is assumed
to be 80% of this amount. Construction values are escalated at 3% per year.
(7) B&O tax revenue is assumed to be zero. Recent changes to the City's B&O tax code
exempt businesses from the tax if they are located on industrially zoned Port
properties and all areas annexed into the City are exempt from B&O tax for a period
of three years for businesses located in the area at the time of annexation. This
analysis conservatively assumes that either the projected growth is occurring on Port
of Bremerton owned property and would therefore be exempt from the City B&O tax
or that the growth is occurring far enough in the projection period that a substantially
higher B&O tax "exemption" level for all entities would be then applied Citywide in
accordance with the City's current program of steady and measured increases in
amounts exempted from B&O tax.
(8) Washington State distributes gas tax, liquor tax, and criminal justice funds to the City
on a per capita basis. The City's share of this distribution will increase with any
population added by this proposed annexation. The budgeted combined rate for 2008
4
is $37.88 per the State Department of Revenue. This amount is multiplied by the
population initially estimated to be included in the proposed annexation area (2.5).
The dollar amount per capita is then increased by 3% each year thereafter. No further
population growth is assumed as it is not expected that future development would be
residential.
(9) Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue in this high growth scenario is assumed to
come from limited sales transactions of privately owned buildings situated on land
leased from the Port of Bremerton. Per Port of Bremerton staff, historical experience
suggests that approximately 2 such transactions occur in every 10 year period. For
this SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario it is assumed that in addition to the amount
projected in the low growth scenario that one additional larger building is sold in each
10 year period. The 0.5% tax is applied to an assumed sale of a 15,000 square foot
building every fifth year in the forecast period with the value estimated
conservatively to be $1,192,800 and one 35,000 square foot building every 7 years
with the value estimated conservatively at $2,783,200 in 2008 dollars based on an
average cost to construct of $79 .52/Sq Ft for industrial facility structures as published
in the January-February 2008 International Code Council Building Valuation Data as
then escalated by 3% in each year thereafter.
(10) Utility taxes are based on average annual power bills of$2,760 in 2008 dollars for a
typical business enterprise located on Port property (per Port of Bremerton staff) and
an estimated telephone service annual cost of $1 ,200 in 2008 dollars, and (per Waste
Management staff) an annual solid waste disposal service cost of $80,851 in 2008
dollars for existing businesses located in the proposed annexation area with an
average annual rate of $2,995 in 2008 dollars as then each multiplied by the number
of businesses projected to be added in future periods of the forecast and escalated by
3% each year thereafter. Utility tax rates are 6% for electricity and telephone, and
9.5% for solid waste disposal services. No revenue estimate is made for utility taxes
on services to residential accounts or for cable television services due to lack of
residences identified in the proposed annexation area and no expectation of
residential development in the area in the future.
(11) In accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.06.020(a) - A general
facility charge (GFC) shall be charged on all new or expanded service connections to
the water, wastewater, and storm water utility systems. The calculation of the general
facility charge for water shall be based on the meter size to be installed for a new or
expanded water utility service. The calculation for the general facility charge for
wastewater shall be based on the number of equivalent residential unites) (ERU)
served. The calculation for general facility charges for stormwater shall be based on
the number of impervious surface units (ISUs) as defined in BMC 15.01.020. The
number ofISUs charged shall be based on the total impervious area divided by the
amount of impervious area in an ISU. The rates applied are per the current BMC.
The Port of Bremerton currently owns and operates its own wastewater utility. Under
this SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario the capacity of the existing system will be
exceeded and additional conveyance and treatment facilities are required. It is
assumed that the City of Bremerton will assume ownership of the Port of Bremerton
wastewater system in 2009 and the City will begin to receive wastewater GFC's.
This will allow the City to receive revenue in years prior to any capital expenditures.
The calculation ofGFC's are based on the following assumptions.
It Water GFC's are based on the GFC for a I" water meter.
'-
/) It)
5
. ,
J,
'.
)
· Wastewater GFC's are based on the Commercial 1 GFC with an estimated
average of 6 ERU's per customer.
· Stormwater GFC's are based on 55,000 SF of billable impervious area or 22
lSU's per customer.
. All GFC's escalated at 3% per year.
(12) This analysis assumes that Phase 1 and Phase 2 water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements are funded utilizing a combination of utility rate revenues and UUD
contributions (see Note 13). Phase 3 water and wastewater infrastruchlre
improvements are funded through mitigation costs to be paid by the Developer as
determined through the development review process and the BMC or as needed. The
level of build-out that this SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario describes will require at least
one, and perhaps several, much larger businesses to be recruited into SKIA. These
would be significantly bigger in size, have a greater number of employees, and higher
projected water and wastewater requirements than the current tenants at the Port of
Bremerton. It is expected that for projects this size a detailed plan for accommodation
would be developed during the SEP A review process and that project specific
financial mitigation would be required. This would result in direct payments from
specific projects to pay for the expansion of the Phase 3 water and wastewater
infrastructure needed between 2019 and 2028. The Sub-Area Plan scenario assumes
these contributions would begin in 2019 and extend throughout the balance of the
planning period.
(13) This analysis assumes that Phase 1 and Phase 2 water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements are funded utilizing a combination of utility rate revenue and UUD
contributions. Phase 3 improvements will be funded by Developer payments as
described in Note (12). For Phase 1 and 2 this analysis assumes the assumption oflow
interest state loans offered by the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) and the
Department of Ecology. It is assumed that the City's utility systems would provide a
15% local cash match from rate revenues for each of these loans with the remainder
then financed for 20 years at an interest rate of 1.5%. See Note 17 for additional
discussion of the projected debt financings. Of the amount financed, it is expected
that a UUD will be formed covering all unserved properties benefited by the related
capital improvements. It is assumed that 2/3rds of the amount financed is expected to
be provided for by the UUD assessments.
(14) No grants or other capital contributions other than developer payments as noted in
(12) above are assumed in this SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario.
(15) Utility system rate revenues are computed in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the
BMC which establishes current utility fees, rates, and other charges. The Port of
Bremerton currently owns and operates its own wastewater utility. Under this SKIA
Sub Area Plan scenario it is assumed the City of Bremerton will assume ownership of
the Port of Bremerton wastewater system in 2009. At that point the City will begin to
receive wastewater rate revenues. The utility rates in this analysis are based on the
following assumptions:
· Water rates are based on the fixed rate for a 1" water meter and an average
annual water usage of 270 RCF which is 1.5 times the current average annual
usage per customer within the Olympic View Industrial Park.
· Stormwater rates are based on 55,000 SF of billable impervious area or 22
ISU's per customer.
6
. Wastewater rates are based on the fixed rate for a Commercial 1 account and
an average annual wastewater usage of 270 RCF.
. All fixed fees and commodity charges are escalated at 3 % per year.
(16) The City General Fund imposes on its internal utility systems a payment in lieu of tax
- similar to the utility tax imposed on external utilities. The current rate is 8.5% of
utility system rate revenues for water, wastewater, and stormwater. This amount
represents revenue to the General Fund and is added to annual expenses of the utility
systems as noted in (22) below. This is an internal transfer between the City's utility
systems and the City's General Fund and is thus shown as both a receipt and an
expense in this analysis.
(17) This analysis assumes the issuance of government obligation (GO) municipal bond
debt (par amount of $4,000,000) mid year in 2015 to cover the allocated portion of
capital costs to construct and purchase a new fire station and fire equipment as
described in note (21). Proceeds are assumed to be approximately 97% of the par
amount. The GO bonds are assumed to be 20 year maturity bonds with an interest
rate of 5.25%. Debt service is assumed to be level payments over the life of the bonds
with the first year assumed to be a Yz year payment. This analysis assumes the
assumption of low interest state loans offered by the Public Works Trust Fund
(PWTF) and the Department of Ecology for the utility system (water and wastewater)
capital improvements. It is assumed that the City's utility systems would provide a
15% local cash match from rate revenues for each of these loans with the remainder
financed for 20 years at an interest rate of 1.5%. Low-interest loans from the state are
competitive and there is no guarantee of continued availability. There is also no
certainty that subsidized rates will remain at currently available levels. The City has
been very successful in recent years in getting support from these programs and our
assumption is that will continue. The back up option to subsidized loans for capital
projects in this SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario would be revenue bonds issued by the
combined Utility System ofthe City. The rates on this type of debt vary but could be
assumed for this analysis to be approximately 5.75% compared to 1.5% for
subsidized loans. For each million in par amount ofloan this potential interest
difference results in an additional annual expense of $27,177. Loans in the amount
of $1,808,130 and $11,363,437 mid year in 2012 and 2013 respectively, and
$443,623, $1,827,726, $1,313,084, and $9,009,240 mid year in 2017,2018,2019, and
2020, respectively, are undertaken to cover the City's portion of capital costs incurred
net of payments by the Developer as described in note (12), and other grants or
capital contributions as described in note (14). Proceeds are assumed to be
approximately 100% of the par amount.
(18) Payment to Kitsap County for revenue sharing in accordance with the interlocal
agreement concerning revenue sharing upon annexation. Revenue Sharing payments
are based on three sources of revenue: 1) County's portion of the local retail sales tax
levied; 2) Ad Valorem property tax levied by the County pursuant to RCW 36.82.040
for establishment and maintenance of county transportation systems; and 3)
Admission tax levied by the County pursuant to Chapter 36.38 RCW. The combined
total of the County's collections from all three sources within the amlexation area
during the calendar year preceding annexation net of the same for the first full
calendar year following annexation = "County's Lost Revenue". The amount of
payment from Bremerton to the County is based on a three-year soft landing approach
with the year 1 payment equal to 75% of the County's Lost Revenue, year 2 payment
equal to 50%, and the third and final year being 25%. The estimated amount of
7
'-
, .
"
r'
, I ....
" "
County lost revenue for these items is $71,000 of sales tax revenue based on the
DOR's reported taxable retail sales in this area of $7,100,000 in 2007, $4,741 in ad
valorem property tax levied for County roads per the County 2008 property tax
assessments for parcels in the proposed annexation area, and zero dollars for
admission tax as the City is not aware of any current sources of admission revenues
that exist.
(19) Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) assumed to be covered by an Interlocal
Agreement between the Bremerton Fire Department and the South Kitsap Fire and
Rescue ('SKFR') during the first several years of the forecast period. Per
information provided by South Kitsap Fire and Rescue dated April 15, 2008, the total
annual estimated impacts of the proposed annexation would be a loss of revenue of
$57,000 in 2008 dollars. This analysis assumes that the City would negotiate an
agreement for continued coverage of this area by SKFR setting an initial
compensation level at the estimated lost revenue amount of$57,000 and then
providing for cost ofliving increases in years thereafter (which is assumed to be 3%
each year thereafter in this analysis). By 2015 it is assumed that the growth in the
proposed annexation areas under this "SKIA Sub Area Plan" scenario would be
significant enough and spread over a greater geographical area than in the "High
Growth" scenario that the City would need to return to service provisioning directly
by City of Bremerton Fire Department staff and results in the need for a new station
in that general area and staffing of that station with one engine and one paramedic
unit. The engine would be staffed with a lieutenant and a firefighter. The paramedic
unit would be staffed with one firefighter/paramedic and one firefighter. This is the
current configuration at Bremerton's other stations. Total personnel needed would be
12 for this staffing at a total annual cost (salary and benefits) of $1 ,090,311 (2008
dollars). The projected growth in this "SKIA Sub Area Plan" scenario occurs much
sooner than the "High Growth" scenario and demand for services is not only greater
overall but spread out over a much greater area within the proposed annexation area.
In this scenario it is expected that the demand from this area and from the anticipated
large residential development in the existing South Bremerton would result in
approximately 1/3 of the time and costs being allocated to the proposed annexation
area and 2/3rds to the more residential areas that would be served by this new station.
For the purposes of this analysis, 1/3rd of the cost of the added personnel is assumed
to be attributed to this proposed annexation area and 1/3rd of the estimated $200,000
(in 2008 dollars) of additional related supplies and operating expenses for those
personnel is assumed to be incurred beginning in 2018 upon completion of the
construction of the required new fire station. The computed annual expense is then
increased by 3% each year thereafter. 1/3rd of the estimated cost to build the new fire
station and to purchase the fire engine, paramedic ambulance, and equipment is
included in the capital expenditures as noted in (21) below.
(20) Police service and coverage of the current south Bremerton area, watershed area, and
the proposed annexation area is expected in combination to require an increase in
staffing of a sector patrol unit - requiring 7 positions at a total annual cost (salary and
benefits) of$592,57l (2008 dollars) plus $100,000 in annual estimated associated
operational expenses. The proposed annexation area in this scenario while large
geographically is expected to generally be low in demand for these services due to the
type of development in the area. A smaller geographical area but an expected higher
demand will come from the anticipated large residential development in the existing
South Bremerton area. Given those expectations for the purposes of this analysis,
50% of the cost of the added personnel and operational expenses are assumed to be
8
"I I.'~
,I (1
attributed to this proposed annexation area for this higher growth scenario. The
computed annual expense is then increased by 3% each year thereafter. 50% of the
estimated cost to purchase 2 vehicles and computer equipment for these additional
personnel in the years 2009 and the replacement cost of those vehicles every five
years thereafter (escalated at 3 % per year) is included in the capital costs as noted in
(21) below. It is expected that the additional personnel would be based out of the
existing police department building. Bringing new police officers on line requires a
period of time to recruit and train. It is assumed that in the first year (2009) a ramp
up to 50% of this annual expense will occur, rising to 75% in the second year (2010),
coming to full new operational levels by the beginning of the third year (2011).
(21) An estimate of $10,000 per year for electronics and street maintenance costs was
provided by the City Engineer. This amount is then escalated by 3% per year for
future years in this analysis.
(22) Utility system expenses are estimated based upon the 2008 budget relationship of
operating expenses to rate revenues charged. For the water, wastewater, and
stormwater system this computes to 88%, 74%, and 91 %, respectively. In addition to
the computation of operation and maintenance expense the total utility expense was
increased in each year by the amount of utility PILOT taxes computed to be
transferred to the General Fund.
(23) General Fund capital costs include the allocated portion of police and fire vehicle and
equipment purchases and the allocated portion of the building of a new fire station
necessary to support the additional staffing needed to provide adequate service levels
in the proposed annexation area in combination with expanded service demands in the
south Bremerton area - as described more fully in note (17) and (18) above. Two
police vehicles and computer equipment are assumed to cost $81,148 (2008) in total
(of which 50% is allocated to this proposed annexation area) and are shown being
replaced every fifth year thereafter at an escalated price of 3% per year. Fire vehicles
and equipment are assumed to cost $918,387 in 2017 in total based on current prices
to purchase as escalated at 5% per year. A higher escalation factor is used for these
equipment purchases due to known upcoming EP A requirements that will drive up
the costs in excess of normal inflationary pressures. 1/3rd of the fire equipment cost
is attributed to this scenario in 2017. In addition in 2015 - 2017 a total cost of
$6,046,618 is estimated for construction of a new fire station in this general area.
This is based upon the assumption of constructing a 12,000 square foot facility using
$325 a square foot (excludes land purchase) plus $900,000 for the land acquisition
costs (all 2008 dollars) - escalated by a factor of8% per year as recommended by the
architectural firm Rice Fergus, Miller for building costs. 1/3rd of the cost of the new
fire station is attributed to this proposed annexation area. The cost of construction is
spread over the three year period with 15% for design & planning in 2015 and the
balance of construction occurring evenly over the following two years (2016 &
2017).
(24) The proposed SKIA annexation area is served by transportation facilities currently
owned, operated and maintained by the State of Washington DOT (SR3), internal
streets owned and managed by the Port of Bremerton, and Lake Flora Road which is
under County jurisdiction. SR3 was recently reworked and widened by DOT to add
additional length to left turn lanes in the vicinity of the Port. The Belfair Bypass
project is expected to address the intersection of Lake Flora Rd. and SR3 within
SKIA and is a state project. The Port is pursuing the construction of the Cross-SKIA
connector Road to link SR3 and the north SKIA properties to Lake Flora Road east of
the airport. The first phase of that project is under design and the Port is planning to
9
". ,.,.
1, II
pursue the issuance of bonds to support the $3.72 M cost of constructing the first
phase in 2010 or 2011. It is assumed the final phase of this improvement would be
financed using a similar approach and that no City money would be necessary for
completion. Kitsap County is designing an upgrade of Lake Flora Road from SR3 to
J.M. Dickenson Road SW. This 3.6 mile improvement includes widening, paving
shoulders, and re-surfacing in addition to re-aligning the intersection at J.M.
Dickenson. This is an estimated $6.4 M project primarily addressing safety issues and
is not being pursued to increase capacity. Funding is expected to come from state
contributions, Transportation Impact Fees, and County gas tax. Recent discussions
with Kitsap County indicate they would continue to pursue this project independent
of potential annexation due to on-going safety concerns and accident history. The
County is not expecting contribution_of City revenues to be required on this project.
This "SKIA Sub Area Plan" scenario includes $25,000 (in 2008 dollars) per year in
Street and Electronic Capital to finance any improvements to city streets within SKIA
after 2014. This amount is escalated by 3% per year for these future years in the
analysis. The length of Lake Flora Road from SR3 to the SKIA boundary may be the
only city street within the proposed annexation at the outset. The Cross SKIA
connector may become a city street once completed. The $25,000 is a placeholder for
any required capital on these facilities..
(25) Capital costs for growth related infrastructure improvements are included as follows:
. WATER
The SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario rapidly accelerates demand and requires a
significant amount of additional water infrastructure capital improvements. These
capital improvements are projected to occur in three phases. Phase 1 requires the
cons.truction of a water transmission main from the golf course to Reservoir lOin
2013. Phase 2 provides for the construction of a 1 MG reservoir to provide
additional storage in 2018. Phase 3 provides for the construction of a water
distribution system around the south end of the airport between 2019 and 2028.
Costs were estimated in 2008 dollars and have been escalated at 3%. The total
cost of these improvements is approximately $8.4M in 2008 dollars.
. WASTEWATER
This SKIA Sub Area Plan scenario includes very rapid growth throughout the
entire twenty-year planning horizon. To accommodate that pace of development a
rapid expansion of wastewater (and water) infrastructure is required. The ability
to handle peak wastewater flow of3.7 MGD from SKIA alone changes the initial
direction away from an on-site MBR option with re-use and infiltration (as
described in the "High Growth" scenario). Without developing significant
amounts of new information regarding soil types, infiltration rates, hydrogeology,
and regulatory direction it is not obvious that 3.7 MGD peak flow could be
accommodated on-site or within a reasonable distance from SKIA. At these flow
rates building a piped system to the City's Westside WWTP appears to be the
most cost effective option and one that could, with reasonable certainty, be
implemented. This scenario assumes Phase 1 construction of a raw wastewater
pump station located at the Port and a force main/gravity main to Gorst in 2013.
Phase 2 includes a pump station built in Gorst and an additional force main to the
Wests ide WWTP to be constructed in 2020. The force main from Gorst to
Bremerton would be built when and if needed. Flow projections in the Southwest
Bremerton sewer suggest it does not have the ultimate capacity to take flows from
10
,\.J \ ~
{' II
a full build-out of the Gorst UGA, the Anderson Hill area of the City and the Sub-
Area plan flows from SKIA without an additional force main being constructed
from Gorst to Bremerton. Phase 3 provides for the expansion of the wastewater
collection system throughout the SKIA UGA between 2019 and 2028. The total
cost of these improvements is approximately $33.4M in 2008 dollars.
e STORMW A TER
It is not anticipated that there will be any stormwater capital improvements
required for this annexation area. There are existing Stormwater facilities in place
that are owned by either the Port of Bremerton or WSDOT. Individual
development projects will be required to mitigate their on-site stormwater impacts
through the use of both standard and low impact development techniques. There
is no apparent need for large-scale regional stormwater conveyance, treatment or
detention facilities. Under all anticipated growth scenarios it is assumed that
stormwater GFC's and rate revenues would be sufficient to support the City's
NPDES Phase II compliance requirements for this new area.
(26) Ending cumulative financial impact represents the beginning net financial impact for
the period carried forward from prior periods plus the current period receipts less
current period expenditures.
11