Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2009 AGENDA I i F ILE CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ❑ Phone (360) 473 -5280 OCTOBER 21, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. BRIEFING: 5:00 — 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 A. General Council Business 2. CALL 10 ORDEE 5:30 P.M. in FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS irir.rr .wrl.r.sw A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. MAXL)RIS,REPORT 4. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 5. CONSENT,AG,ENQA A. Claims & Check Register B. Minutes of Meeting — October 7, 2009 C. Minutes of Study Session — October 14, 2009, D. Resolution No. 3099 rescinding Resolution No 305 and establishing a Small Public Works Roster E. Acceptance of 2009 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant F. Acceptance of 2010 to 2011 Department of Ecology (DOE) Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant G. Approval of Utility Easement to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for an Emergency Generator constructed at Fountain Park 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Resolution No. 3100 approving application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108 Guaranteed Loan for construction of the Bremerton Boardwalk Project B. Resolution No. 3101 approving the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations C. Ordinance No. 5091 amending Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 "Zoning Code" 7. GENE_RAL BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 5092 amending Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to the Mayor's Compensation 8. COU COIL MEJJBER,REPOR,TS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL, BUSINESS MEETING ' b . ....i... IAA .�..�1�..�IIr..1�.1..��1 I .I■ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473 -5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the Council meeting. COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU WISH YOUR COMMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD 5P�oor-- 0 Q7 f776 T OC �v j�, i�Sa e�� �l Ser REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK THANK YOU DATE SUBMITTED: 10/21/2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 6A CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: October 21, 2009 Claims & Check Register Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 473 -5296 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 GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1) Check #'s 334112 through 334394 and EFT's 9200 through 9242 in the amount of $1,579,114.46. 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending October 15, 2009 in the amount of $736,315.93. COUNCIL ACTION: ® Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action OA 1 1. st I MF] t 1 1: AGENDA BILL (Tl'l' 01. 13RE.MERTON CIT}' COUN('1L ......................................... n............... .............................., SUBJECT: City C'OUnell Mccting Minutes Committee Meeting Date: N/A tur meeting of COUNCIL )OFIFTINO Date: pc *zj j�,�oX -. Oc-+o bear 7, 20 C) Department: City Council Presenter: Cecil McConnell Council President Phone: (300) 473 -5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting held OG`O 7 / Z ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for OCtt06 e y"' -7 1 _009 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: Council President CITY ATTORNEY: N/A FINANCE DIRECTOR: N/A MAYOR: N/A COMMITTEE CHAIR N/A C'OUNC'IL PRESIDENT: �` CONSENT AGENDA GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECONINIENDED MOTION: Move to approve the C onscnt Agcnda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: [:]Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ ('untnuie ❑ No Action DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, October 7, 2009 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6 1 Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Cecil McConnell presiding. Council Members present were Nick Wofford, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Roy Runyon, and Brad Gehring. Council Member Adam Brockus was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich, City Clerk Carol Etgen, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. A COUNCIL BRIEFING was held to discuss General Council Business; and at 5:30 PM the meeting moved to the First Floor Meeting Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Brad Gehring followed by the invocation provided by Pastor Roger Hennigan of Apostolic Life Tabernacle. MAYOR'S REPORT • Mayor Pro Tern Cecil McConnell was pleased to announce that fellow Council Member Dianne Robinson was presented with the Governor's Award of Excellence for outstanding volunteer service to her community and Washington State. • Proclaimed the month of October 2009 as "Community Planning Month "; and the proclamation was accepted by Community Development Director Andrea Spencer • Public Works & Utilities Director Phil Williams introduced Water Resources Manager Kathleen Cahall to provide a briefing on H1 N1 ( "swine flu ") preparedness, including ways to stay healthy. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - There were no public comments... CONSENT AGENDA A. Check Numbers 333807 through 334111; and EFT -9120 through EFT -9199 in the amount of $4,431,281.46; Regular Payroll in the amount of $761,418.01 for the pay period ending September 15, 2009; Regular Payroll and Retro Pay in the amount of $748,144.36 for the pay period ending September 30, 2009; and Retiree Payroll in the amount of $81,287.65 for the pay period ending September 30, 2009. B. Minutes of Meeting — September 16, 2009 C. Minutes of Study Session — September 23, 2009 D. Reappointments of Joan Dingfield and Matthew Keough to the Parks & Recreation Commission E. Agreement with WEST® for Westlaw Research Subscription F. Purchase of Playback System from MEDIASTAR -SG for Bremerton Kitsap Access Television There were no questions or comments from the public... 05:40:45 M /S /C /U (Runyon / Wofford) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. GENERAL BUSINESS 6A — RESOLUTION NO. 3098 AFFIRMING SUPPORT OF THE 2010 CENSUS: AND APPROVING A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Council President Cecil McConnell stated that the proposed resolution affirms support of the 2010 Census and approves a Partnership Agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Eric Davenport and Jodi Bryant U.S. Census Bureau, were available to answer questions. There were no comments from the public... 05:42:35 The Main Motion was made and seconded, as discussion began by the Council... Brad Gehring asked for clarification on what information the census workers would be obtaining from residents; and asked when the additional questions were added to the form. Mr. Davenport responded that the form is created in a process required by the Constitution but the form for this year has been shortened, and consists of only 10 questions. The long form used in the past has been a lot more extensive, and will only be provided to households at random but not at the time of the census. Information provided assists the government in determining funding that may be allocated for programs like education. Dianne Robinson asked how the entire City of Bremerton would be engaged to participate in the census. Mr. Davenport answered that maps and GPS devices were used to confirm the exact location of any and all residences by census workers and any or all information would be treated as confidential. Nick Wofford asked if other agencies would use or have access to census information. Mr. Davenport replied no. Will Maupin asked for clarification on the "Complete Count Committee ". Mr. Davenport summarized that the committee represents a cross section of the community such as faith, ethnicity, business, etc. and that committee would come up with a process that would work for Bremerton. Staffing would be provided by the Census Bureau for the committee and that person would be Jodi Bryant. Roy Runyon asked for the target date for completion of the census; and inquired how the Bureau would deal with homeless individuals. Mr. Davenport provided a time -line with completion of the census expected by mid summer; explained how they would get counts of homeless persons which would include a team of enumerators going out into the community and in service centers on one unannounced night to take a count; and encouraged people to visit website www.census.gov to receive more information on the process. 05:59:22 M /S /C /U (Arends /Maupin) Move to pass Resolution No. 3098 affirming support of the 2010 Census; and authorizing the Mayor to execute the 2010 Census Partnership Agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau. 613 — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX FOR SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE; AND 2009 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Nicole Ward Department of Community Development, explained that State Law requires the City of Bremerton to update its SMP by 2012. The State Department of Ecology has awarded the City a $200,000 grant to complete the work. The City does not have the professional expertise to complete all of the necessary work for an update of this size, and therefore is seeking an outside consultant. The City has selected Parametrix as its consultant following a Request for Proposals submittal and review process. A Professional Services Agreement'between PARAMETRix and the City for $99,986 needs to be duly executed. There were no comments from the public... 06:01:40 M /S /C /U (Runyon /Robinson) Move to amend the 2009 DCD budget for revenue and expenditures in the amount of $30,000 and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with Parametrix in the amount of $99,986 with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Brad Gehring announced that the 2009 Stand Down for Veterans and Their Families will be held on Saturday, October 10 from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM in the Presidents Hall at Kitsap Fairgrounds. Veterans who served more than 6 months, had an honorable discharge, and are enrolled or ready to enroll in VA Health may be eligible for free services during this event. If you wish to enroll, please bring copies of your discharge papers and photo identification. Roy Runyon invited citizens to attend the next District 4 Community Meeting on Thursday, October 15 from 5:30 to 6:30 PM at Cora's Diner located at 602 4' Street. Public Works Director Phil Williams will be the featured speaker regarding car tab fees and immediately followed by a discussion on keeping chickens in the city limits. Please contact (360) 440 -0420 for more information; and reported on recent events including Oktoberfest and the First Annual Bremerton Party. Mike Shepherd competed in a marathon in Bellingham and commented that their streets were in far worse shape that Bremerton's but was pleased with their recent revitalization efforts; and hoped people would recognize and honor our veterans. Dianne Robinson attended the Grand Opening of the Hewitt House Transition Housing and thanked Kitsap Community Resources for supporting this project; attended the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) Executive Board meeting yesterday which included discussion on legislative and ferry issues for 2010; reported on numerous board and committee meetings she attended during the past few weeks and highlights included updates regarding H1 N1 flu vaccinations and continued funding for homeless programs; and announced that she will be attending the next Anderson Cove Neighborhood Association on Monday, October 12 at 7:00 PM. Carol Arends was also at the KRCC Board Meeting on Tuesday, and appreciated the report provided by Representatives Larry Seaquist and Christine Rolfes on the Washington State Ferries; and recommended that people contact their legislators if they have any questions. Will Maupin attended the Economic Vitality Conference last week and described discussions about cooperating and bringing businesses to Bremerton; and enjoyed attending the Literacy Council Lunch held last Thursday which he found very interesting listening to inspiring stories about how they have helped people. Nick Wofford displayed the new Fall 2009 Schedule for the Washington State Ferries; and announced that BKAT will be replaying the "Budget Roundtable" on Mondays at 10:00 AM and Wednesdays at 8:00 PM through the month of October. With no further business, President McConnell adjourned the Council Meeting at 6:15 PM. Prepared and Submitte by: L RI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President CM:CE:ls:cg ACENDA BILL VS co CHA' OF 13RE\-11R'I'ON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: City ('ouncll Meeting MlnUtes C'onlinittee Meeting Date: N/A ti)r meeting of ('c)UtiC'il. �4L1: I INc Date: 2 ZC70 Dc+ober 14 , 2oo9 Departnlerlt: City Council Presenter: Cecil McConnell Council President Phone: (360) 473 -5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting held Oar o6e -- 14 2409 ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for 06+v10ey 14,2- FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: Council President CITY ATTORNEY: N/A FINANCE DIRECTOR: N/A MAYOR: N/A COMMITTEE CHAIR N/A COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ` _� CONSENT AGENDA GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOINIMENDED MOTION: Move to approNe the Conscnt Agenda as presented, COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ 'fable ❑ t'ontinue ❑ No Action DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 14, 2009 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Conference Room 603, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6 "' Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 5:00 PM, with Council President Cecil McConnell presiding. Council Members present were Nick Wofford, Will Maupin, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Roy Runyon, Adam Brockus, and Brad Gehring. Council Member Carol Arends was absent. Council Assistant Christine Grenier was present to provide staff support. President McConnell emphasized that the Study Session was open to the public, however 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 items are budgeted items or have been reviewed by the appropriate Council Committee; and will be placed on the next Council Meeting Agenda for action: 1. Proposed Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 3058 and establishing a Small Public Works Roster — Carol Etgen, City Clerk; and Nick Wofford, Finance Committee Chair Consent Agenda 2. Acceptance of 2009 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant — Police Chief Craig Rogers; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair Consent Agenda 3. Acceptance of 2010 to 2011 Department of Ecology (DOE) Phase II Stormwater Pass - Through Grant — Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Brad Gehring, Public Works Committee Chair Consent Agenda 4. Approval of Utility Easement to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for an Emergency Generator constructed at Fountain Park — Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Brad Gehring, Public Works Committee Chair Consent Agenda 5. Contract Award for the pre - purchase of UV System Equipment to TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES for the UV Treatment Facility — Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Brad Gehring, Public Works Committee Chair Item pulled and contract will be rebid... B. FULL DISCUSSION ITEMS 6. Proposed resolution approving application from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108 Guaranteed Loan for construction of the Bremerton Boardwalk Project —Marie Vila, CDBG Program Administrator; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair Public Hearing 7. Proposed resolution approving the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations — Phedra Elliott, CDBG Program Coordinator; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair Public Hearing 8. Proposed ordinance amending Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 "Zoning Code" — Nicole Ward, Planner; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair Public Hearing 9. Item pulled City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Page 2 of 2 10. Proposed ordinance amending Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to the Mayor's Compensation — Council Member Roy Runyon; and Finance Committee Chair Nick Wofford General Business C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS A discussion of General Council Business was held and brief Committee Chair Reports provided. President McConnell adjourned the Study Session at 6:35 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: r CHRISTINE GREN Council Assistant Attest: CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President CM:CE:ls:cg DATE SUBMITTED: October 6. 2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution No. .30 Committee Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 Rescinding Resolution No. 3058 and COUNCIL MEETING Date: October 21, 2009 Establishing a Small Public Works Roster Department: Finance process to award public works contracts and Presenter: Carol Etgen, City Clerk a consulting services roster for architectural, Phone: 473 -5323 engineering and other professional services with new contract limits SUMMARY: On May 7, 2009, Council adopted Resolution No. 3058 establishing a Small Public Works Roster through Municipal Research Services Corporation. Governor Gregoire signed HB 1196 (Chapter 74, 2009 Laws), raising the maximum dollar amount allowed for use of a small works roster process (RCW 39.04.155) from $200,000 to $300,000, effective July 26th, 2009. In addition the dollar amount requiring notification of all contractors on the roster (see RCW 39.04.155 (2c)) has also been changed - from between $100,000 and $200,000 to between $150,000 and $300,000. The adoption of this resolution will allow the City of Bremerton to enter into contracts with the new dollars limits using the MRSC Small Public Works Roster. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution ND . 3o 9 9 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $500 annually APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA A GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No 30 q q _ Rescinding Resolution No. 3058 and establishing a Small Works Roster process to award Public Works contracts and a Consulting Services Roster for Architectural, Engineering and other Professional Services. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action RESOLUTION NO. 3 0 q q A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington on the subjects of rescinding Resolution No. 3058 and establishing a Small Public Works Roster process to award public works contracts and a consulting services roster for architectural, engineering and other professional services. WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.155 and other laws regarding contracting for public works by municipalities, allow certain contracts to be awarded by a Small Works Roster process; and WHEREAS, in order to be able to implement Small Works Roster processes, the City is required by law to adopt a resolution establishing specific procedures; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.80.030 requires that an agency publish in advance that agency's requirement for professional services and that one of the ways to accomplish that notification is to announce generally to the public its projected requirements for any category or type of professional services and request qualification statements to be kept on file with the agency; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION]. MRSC Rosters. The City wishes to contract with the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) to adopt for the City use those state wide electronic databases for small public works roster and consulting services developed and maintained by MRSC. In addition, paper and/or electronic rosters may be kept on file by appropriate City departments. SECTION 2. Small Public Works Roster The following Small Works Roster procedures are established for use by the City pursuant to RCW 39.04.155: 1. Cost. The City need not comply with formal sealed bidding procedures for the construction, building, renovation, remodeling, alteration, repair, or improvement of real property where the estimated cost does not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), which includes the costs of labor, material, equipment and sales and/or use taxes as applicable. Instead, the City may use the Small Public Works Roster procedures for public works projects as set forth herein. The breaking of any project into units or accomplishing any projects by phases is prohibited if it is done for the purpose of avoiding the maximum dollar amount of a contract that may be let using the Small Works Roster process. 1 Small Works Roster 2. Publication. At least once a year, on behalf of the City, MRSC shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction a notice of the existence of the roster or rosters and solicit the names of contractors for such roster or rosters. Responsible contractors shall be added to appropriate MRSC Roster(s) at any time that they submit a written request and necessary. records. The City may require master contracts to be signed that become effective when a specific award is made using a Small Works Roster. 3. Telephone or Written Quotations. The City shall obtain telephone, written or electronic quotations for public works contracts from contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster to assure that a competitive price is established and to award contracts to a contractor who meets the mandatory bidder responsibility criteria in RCW 39.04.350(1) and may establish supplementary bidder criteria under RCW 39.04.350 (2) a) A contract awarded from a Small Works Roster need not be advertised. Invitations for quotations shall include an estimate of the scope and nature of the work to be performed as well as materials and equipment to be furnished. However, detailed plans and specifications need not be included in the invitation. b) Quotations may be invited from all appropriate contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster. As an alternative, quotations may be invited from at least five contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster who have indicated the capability of performing the kind of work being contracted, in a manner that will equitably distribute the opportunity among the contractors on the appropriate roster. "Equitably distribute" means that the City may not favor certain contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster over other contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster who perform similar services. If the estimated cost of the work is from one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), the City may choose to solicit bids from less than all the appropriate contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster but must notify the remaining contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster that quotations on the work are being sought. The City has the sole option of determining whether this notice to the remaining contractors is made by: (i) Publishing notice in a legal newspaper in general circulation in the area where the work is to be done; (ii) Mailing a notice to these contractors; or (iii) Sending a notice to these contractors by facsimile or email. c) At the time bids are solicited, the City representative shall not inform a contractor of the terms or amount of any other contractor's bid for the same project; d) A written record shall be made by the City representative of each contractor's bid on the project and of any conditions imposed on the bid. Immediately after an 2 Small Works Roster award is made, the bid quotations obtained shall be recorded, open to public inspection, and available by telephone inquiry. 4. Limited Public Works Process. If a work, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement project is estimated to cost less than thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000), the City may award such a contract using the limited public works process provided under RCW 39.04.155 (3). For a limited public works project, the City will solicit electronic or written quotations from a minimum of three contractors from the appropriate Small Works Roster and shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder as defined under RCW 39.04.010. After an award is made, the quotations shall be open to public inspection and available by electronic request. For limited public works projects, the City may waive the payment and performance bond requirements of chapter 39.08 RCW and the retainage requirements of chapter 60.28 RCW, thereby assuming the liability for the contractor's nonpayment of laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, and taxes imposed under Title 82 RCW that may be due from the contractor for the limited public works project. However, the City shall have the right of recovery against the contractor for any payments made on the contractor's behalf. The City shall maintain a list of the contractors contacted and the contracts awarded during the previous 24 months under the limited public works process, including the name of the contractor, the contractor's registration number, the amount of the contract, a brief description of the type of work performed, and the date the contract was awarded. 5. Determining Lowest Responsible Bidder. The City Council shall award the contract for the public works project to the lowest responsible bidder provided that, whenever there is a reason to believe that the lowest acceptable bid is not the best price obtainable, all bids may be rejected and the City Council may call for new bids. A responsible bidder shall be a registered and/or licensed contractor who meets the mandatory bidder responsibility criteria established by Chapter 133, Laws of 2007 (SH13 2010) and who meets any supplementary bidder responsibly criteria established by the City. 6. Award. The Department Director or designee shall present all telephone quotations/bids and recommendation for award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder to the City Council. However, for public works projects under $25,000 the Department Director shall have the authority to award public works contracts without City Council approval. For public works projects over $25,000 the City Council shall award all public works contracts. SECTION 3. Consulting Services Roster 3 Small Works Roster i 1. Consulting Services. Consulting services are professional services that have a primarily intellectual output or product and include architectural and engineering services as defined in RCW 39.80.020. 2. Publication. At least once a year, on behalf of the City MRSC shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction a notice of the existence of the consulting services roster or rosters and solicit statements of qualifications from firms providing consulting services. Such advertisements will include information on how to find the address and telephone number of a representative of the City who can provide further details as to the City's projected needs for consulting services. Firms or persons providing consulting services shall be added to appropriate MRSC roster or rosters at any time that they submit a written request and necessary records. The City may require master contracts to be signed that become effective when a specific award is made using a consulting services roster. 3. Professional Architectural and Engineering Services. The MRSC Rosters will distinguish between professional architectural and engineering services as defined in RCW 39.80.020 and other consulting services and will announce generally to the public the City's projected requirements for any category or type of professional or other consulting services. The City reserves the right to publish an announcement on each occasion when professional services or other consulting services are required by the agency and to use paper and/or other electronic rosters that may be kept on file by appropriate City departments. SECTION 4. Severability. If any one 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 S. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of 9 2009. CECIL MCCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk H: \Contracts \Small Works Roster Resolution 04- 08.doc 4 Small Works Roster DATE SUBMITTED: October 6, 2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON L CITY COUNCIL ......................................................... .............................. SUBJECT: 2009 Bulletproof Vest Committee Meeting Date: 10 -14 -2009 Partnership Grant Acceptance COUNCIL MEETING Date: 10 -21 -2009 Department: Police Presenter: Chief Rogers Phone: 473 -5224 SUMMARY: The federal government will pay 50 percent of the costs when the Police Department purchases ballistic vests through September 30, 2011. The City received federal funds in the amount of $2,450.00. Current costs for the vests are $800.00. Police on duty are afforded protection through the use of safety and body armor. ATTACHMENTS: Electronic Announcement Message FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount3j du get expenditures on vests over the next two years will be reduced $2,450.00. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: 4- 4 MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA X GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the 2009 Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant Award and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the acceptance documents with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Page I of I Timothy Sholtis From: owner-bvp-list@ojp.usdoj.gov on behalf of BVP [bvp@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:15 AM To: BVP -list Subject: Bulletproof Vest Partnership FY 2009 Awards The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is pleased to inform you that your agency will receive an award under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) solicitation. These funds have been posted to your account in the BVP system. For questions regarding the BVP Program or your award, please do not hesitate to contact the BVP Help Desk at vests@ojp.gov. A complete list of FY 2009 BVP awards is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/ The FY 2009 award funds may be used for National Institute of Justice (NIJ) compliant armored vests which were ordered on or after April 1, 2009. The deadline to request payments from the FY 2009 award funds is September 30, 2011, or until all available 2009 awards funds have been requested. Thank You. BVP Program Support Team 10/6/2009 DATE SUBMITTED: October 7, 2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL . ........................................................ ............................... SUBJECT: Grant Acceptance for 2010- Committee Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 2011 Department of Ecology Phase II COUNCIL MEETING Date October 21, 2009 Stormwater Pass - through Grant Program Department: PW &U Presenter: Michael Mecham Phone: 473 -5288 SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities is the recipient of a grant entitled "Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant G 1000213" from the Washington Department of Ecology for $50,000. The purpose of the grant is to assist local government in implementing provisions of the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) — Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit that become effective January 17, 2007. The Department intends to use the grant for personnel costs associated with mapping the City's stormwater collection system, for community outreach and education activities, and for grant administration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Summary; 2. Grant Agreement Number G 1000213 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No matching funds are required. The work funded by this grant needs to be completed by June 30, 2011. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: �--- CITY ATTORNEY: ` FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA (� GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Grant Funding from the Department of Ecology for the Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Program and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented and to authorize a budget adjustment of $50,000 revenue to the Stormwater Utility budget. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Council Summary Department of Ecology Stormwater Pass Through Grant Summary The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities is the recipient of a grant entitled Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant G1000213 from the Washington Department of Ecology for $50,000. The purpose of the grant is to assist local government in implementing provisions of the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)- Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit that became effective January 17, 2007. The Department intends to use the grant for personnel costs associated with mapping the City's stormwater collection system, for community outreach and education activities, training and for grant administration. All these activities are requirements of the NPDES permit. A significant portion of the grant will be used to continue the mapping of the City's stormwater system using global positioning system (GPS) and geographic information system (GIS) technology. The Public Works Department mapped approximately 70 percent of the City's stormwater system using a similar Department of Ecology grant prior to this. Fiscal Summary No matching funds are required for this $50,000 grant. The work funded by this grant needs to be completed by June 30, 2011. Funding will be available upon completion of the signing of the agreement. Council Summary October 2009 FY 2010 -2011 PHASE II STORMWATER PASS - THROUGH GRANTS PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT of STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ECOLOGY AND State of Washington City of Bremerton THIS is a binding agreement entered into, by, and between the state of Washington Department of Ecology (DEPARTMENT), and City of Bremerton (RECIPIENT). The purpose of this agreement is to provide funds to the RECIPIENT to carry out the requirements described herein. PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Program Grant Number: G1000213 RECIPIENT Name and Address: City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities 100 Oyster Bay Ave S Bremerton, Washington 98312 RECIPIENT Contact: Larry Matel Telephone Number: 360- 473 -5342 Fax Number: 360 - 473 -5398 E -Mail Address: larry.matel @ci.bremerton.wa.us RECIPIENT Billing Contact: Ong Smith Telephone Number: 360 - 473 -2324 Fax Number: E -Mail Address: onghong.smith @ci.bremerton.wa.us RECIPIENT Federal ID Number: 91- 6001231 DEPARTMENT Project/Financial Manager: Mailing Address: Water Quality Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 -7600 Telephone Number: 360- 407 -6502 Fax Number: 360- 407 -7151 E -Mail Address: DESIGNATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERS (if applicable) ECY 070 -357 (Rev. 9/09) Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant For partnerships, the lead government and partners must submit a copy of the signed agreement in Appendix B with each copy of the grant agreement. DEPARTMENT Funding Source: 2010 -2011 Biennial Operating Budget /Local Toxics Control Account Total Cost (up to $50,000 each recipient): $ 50,000 Total Eligible Cost (up to $50,000 each Recipient): $ 50,000 DEPARTMENT Share ($50,000 each Recipient): $ 50,000 DEPARTMENT Maximum Percentage: 100% The effective date of this grant agreement is July 1, 2009. Any work performed prior to the effective date of this agreement will be at the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT. This agreement expires on June 30, 2011. PART II. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A. Water QualitGoal Improved stormwater management and water quality protection associated with development and implementation of a stormwater management program. B. Project Outcomes Local Government Stormwater Grants for local governments to receive grants for municipal stormwater programs, including but not limited to- implementation of Phase II municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. C. Post Project Assessment The RECIPIENT agrees to submit a brief survey three years after project completion regarding the key project outcomes and the status of environmental results or goals from the project. The DEPARTMENT's Performance Measures Lead will e-mail the RECIPIENT the Post Project Assessment Survey. The DEPARTMENT may conduct on -site interviews and inspections, and may otherwise evaluate the Project. The DEPARTMENT will enter the information provided into its performance measures database to be provided to the Washington State Legislature, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other natural resource agencies. Approximate Post Project Assessment Date: June 30, 2012 Page 2 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant PART III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The RECIPIENT's stormwater project will address implementation or management of municipal stormwater programs. PART IV. PROJECT BUDGET Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Program TOTAL ELIGIBLE ELEMENTS COST (TEC)* Task 1 — Project Administration /Management (limited to 10% of total) $ 5,000 Task 2 — Implementation and management of Stormwater Program $ 45,000 Total (limited to $50,000 per Recipient partner) $ 50,000 *The DEPARTMENT's Fiscal Office will track to the Total Eligible Project Cost. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS (There are no matching requirements) DEPARTMENT Share FY 2010 -11 (100% of TEC) $ 50,000 Payment Request Submittals Payment requests will not be submitted more often than monthly, unless allowed by the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager. The DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager may require the RECIPIENT to submit regular payment requests to ensure efficient and timely use of funds. Payment Schedule Payments will be made on a cost - reimbursable basis. PART V. SCOPE OF WORK The RECIPIENT shall ensure that this project is completed according to the details of this agreement. The RECIPIENT may elect to use its own forces or it may contract for professional services necessary to perform and complete project related work. The RECIPIENT certifies by signing this agreement that all applicable requirements have been satisfied in the procurement of any professional services. Eligible and ineligible project costs are separate and identifiable for billing purposes. If professional services are contracted, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the final contract to the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager. Task 1 - Project Administration /Management A. The RECIPIENT shall administer the project. Responsibilities will include, but not be limited to: maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms, and progress reports; compliance with applicable procurement, contracting, and interlocal agreement requirements; application for, receipt of, and compliance with all required Page 3 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant permits, licenses, easements, or property rights necessary for the project; and submittal of required performance items. B. The RECIPIENT shall manage the project. Efforts will include: conducting, coordinating, and scheduling project activities and assuring quality control. Every effort will be made to maintain effective communication with the RECIPIENT's designees; the DEPARTMENT; all affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions; and any interested individuals or groups. The RECIPIENT shall carry out this project in accordance with any completion dates outlined in this agreement. C. The RECIPIENT shall submit all invoice voucher submittals and supportive documentation, to the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager. Copies of all applicable forms shall be included with an original A 19 -1 A, and shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT. Blank forms are found in Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans at http:// www.ecy.wa.govibiblio /9118.html ' Required Forms Where Eligible Costs Have Incurred Form A19 -1A (original signature) Form E (ECY 060 -12) Form B2 (ECY 060 -7) Form F (ECY 060 -13) Form C2 (ECY 060 -9) Form G (ECY 060 -14) Form D (ECY 060 -11) Form H (F -21) Form I (ECY 060 -15) D. If work conducted results in a report, the RECIPIENT shall submit the following to the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager and in the quantities identified: • Draft project completion reports — one electronic copy • Final project completion reports — five copies • Electronic copy of final project completion report The RECIPIENT shall submit two copies of any document(s) which requires DEPARTMENT approval. Once approval is given, one copy will be returned to the RECIPIENT. If the RECIPIENT needs more than one approved copy, the number of submittals should be adjusted accordingly. Task 2 — Implementation of Stormwater Planning and Management Needs A. The RECIPIENT shall address stormwater management needs that protect or restore water quality. The RECIPIENT may conduct work related to implementation of activities required by the municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Page 4 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant B. Check the boxes that represent the activities funded under this grant: ® Public education and outreach activities ® Public involvement and participation activities ® Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program activities, including: ® Mapping or geographic information systems of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s); ❑ Staff training ® Activities to identify and remove illicit stormwater discharges; ❑ Dry weather outfall screening procedures and field activities; ❑ Complaint hotline database or tracking system improvements. ® Activities to support programs to control runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites, including: ❑ Development of an ordinance and associated technical manual ❑ Inspections before, during, and upon completion of construction, or for post - construction long -term maintenance. ® Training for plan review and/or inspection staff ❑ Pollution prevention, good housekeeping, and operation and maintenance program activities, such as: ❑ Inspecting and/or maintaining the MS4 infrastructure ❑ Developing and/or implementing policies, procedures, or stormwater pollution prevention plans at municipal properties or facilities. ❑ Annual reporting activities, including developing a summary of identified barriers to the use of low impact development. ❑ Establishing and refining stormwater utilities, including stable rate structures. ❑ Water quality monitoring to implement permit requirements for a Water Cleanup Plan (TMDL). Note that any monitoring funded by this program requires submittal of a Quality Assurance Project Plan that Ecology approves prior to awarding funding for monitoring. ® Developing a report to plan for monitoring the next permit cycle. ® Equipment purchases that result directly in improved compliance with permit requirements. Allowed costs for equipment purchases must be specific to implementing a permit requirement (such as a vactor truck) rather than general use (such as a general us pick -up truck). Qualified equipment purchases include but are not limited to: ❑ Illicit discharge testing equipment and materials ❑ Vactor truck or sweeper truck for MS4 maintenance activities ® Electronic devices dedicated to mapping of MS4 facilities and attributes ® Software dedicated to tracking permit implementation activities ❑ Other activities consistent with the funding purposes of this program that support stormwater management programs or permit compliance, which can be completed by the June 30, 2011, deadline. Provide brief description in the space below: Page 5 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass- through Grant PART VI. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Commencement of Work In the event that the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded herein within four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to terminate this agreement. B. DEPARTMENT Funding Recognition tion The RECIPIENT shall acknowledge and inform the public about DEPARTMENT funding participation in this project as appropriate. Examples include project signs and/or acknowledgement in published materials and reports, the news media, or other public announcements. Projects addressing site - specific locations must utilize appropriately sized and weather - resistant signs. C. Equipment Purchase The purchase of equipment may be eligible under this project. If the RECIPIENT determines that equipment is needed to achieve the project outcomes, a request must be made to the DEPARTMENT. All equipment purchases must have prior approval by the DEPARTMENT. Allowable equipment purchases include equipment needed to implement permit requirements (such as a vactor truck) rather than for general use (such as general use pick -up truck). D. Indirect Rate To acknowledge overhead costs, the RECIPIENT may charge an indirect rate up to 25 percent based on RECIPIENT employee's direct salary and benefit costs incurred while conducting project related work, provided that prior to signature of this agreement, the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager may require a list of items included in the indirect rate during negotiations or thereafter. Items that are generally included in an indirect rate are identified in Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans E. Meetings /Light Refreshments The RECIPIENT may spend up to $50 per meeting for light refreshments associated with this project. The total amount spent for light refreshments under this agreement cannot exceed $300. F. Minority and Women's Business Participation The RECIPIENT agrees to solicit and recruit, to the extent possible, certified minority -owned (MBE) and women -owned (WBE) businesses in purchases and contracts initiated after the effective date of this agreement. Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MBE or WBE participation. M /WBE participation is encouraged, however, and the RECIPIENT and all prospective bidders or persons submitting qualifications should take the following steps, when possible, in any procurement initiated after the effective date of this agreement: 1. Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists. 2. Assure that qualified minority and women's businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources of services or supplies. 3. Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities, to permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's businesses. Page 6 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant 4. Establish delivery schedules, where work requirements permit, which will encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses. 5. Use the services and assistance of the State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises ( OMWBE) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate. The RECIPIENT shall report to the DEPARTMENT at the time of submitting each invoice, on forms provided by the DEPARTMENT, payments made to qualified firms. Please include the following information: 1. Name and state OMWBE certification number (if available) of any qualified firm receiving funds under the invoice, including any sub - and /or sub - subcontractors. 2. The total dollar amount paid to qualified firms under this invoice. G. Progress Reports The RECIPIENT shall submit quarterly Progress Reports to the DEPARTMENT's Project/Financial Manager. Payment requests will not be processed without a Progress Report. Reporting Periods • January 1 through March 31 • April 1 through June 30 • July 1 through September 30 • October 1 through December 31 Reporting Due Date Quarterly Progress Reports are due 15 days following the end of the quarter. Report Content At a minimum, all Progress Reports must contain a comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period, the reasons for delay if established objectives were not met, analysis and explanation of any cost overruns, and any additional pertinent information specified in this agreement. H. Water Quality Monitoring Prior to initiating water quality monitoring activities, the RECIPIENT must prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that follows Ecology's Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, February 2001 (Ecology Publication No. 01 -03 -003). The RECIPIENT must submit the QAPP to the DEPARTMENT for review, comment, and must be approved before starting the environmental monitoring activities. The RECIPIENT must use an environmental laboratory accredited by Ecology to analyze water samples for all parameters to be analyzed that require bench testing. The RECIPIENT should manage all monitoring data collected or acquired under this agreement in order to be available to secondary users and meet the "ten -year rule." Monitoring Data Submittal / Environmental Information Management System Funding recipients that collect water quality monitoring data must submit all appropriate data to Ecology through the Environmental Information Management System (EIM). Page 7 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant PART VII. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This agreement, the appended GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS the DEPARTMENT's current edition of Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans ( "Yellow Book'), and the Local Government Stormwater Grants Program FY 2008 contain the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no other understandings or representations other than as set forth or incorporated by reference, herein. No subsequent modification(s) or amendment(s) of this agreement shall be of any force or effect unless signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and DEPARTMENT and made a part of this agreement, EXCEPT that in response to a request from the RECIPIENT, the DEPARTMENT may redistribute the grant budget. The DEPARTMENT or RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts without the concurrence of either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant: STATE OF WASHINGTON City of Bremerton DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY JURISDICTION DATE DATE KELLY SUSEWIND, P.E., P.G. NAME: WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER TITLE: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL (Revised 8/14/09) Page 8 of 17 Phase I1 Stormwater Pass - through Grant Appendix A GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements of the Department of Ecology A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and RECIPIENT's employees. The RECIPIENT shall only use contractor /consultant assistance if that has been included in the agreement's final scope of work and budget. B. SUBGRANTEE /CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE The RECIPIENT must ensure that all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third -party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such. D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING) Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering services shall be awarded through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded, for inspection and use by the DEPARTMENT. E. ASSIGNMENTS No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT. F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS 1. The RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders, regulations and permits. Prior to commencement of any construction, the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits have been secured, and make copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request. 2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to affirmatively support the program of the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to the maximum extent possible. If the agreement is federally- funded, the RECIPIENT shall report to the DEPARTMENT the percent of grant/loan funds available to women or minority owned businesses. 3. Wages And Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety. 4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements. If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the Page 9 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant DEPARTMENT shall have the right to immediately terminate this agreement for cause as provided in Section K.1, herein. G. KICKBACKS The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this project to give up any part of the compensation to which he /she is otherwise entitled or, receive any fee, commission or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder. H. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS 1. The RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this agreement. Such records shall clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and task or object. All grant/loan records shall be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections. Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished under this agreement shall be maintained by the RECIPIENT. 2. All grant/loan records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly authorized audit representative of the State of Washington for a period of at least three years after the final grant payment/loan repayment or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits identify discrepancies in the financial records, the RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and/or make adjustments accordingly. 3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available to the DEPARTMENT and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this agreement and for at least three years following grant/loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. 4. RECIPIENT shall meet the provisions in OMB Circular A -133 (Audits of States, Local Governments & Non Profit Organizations), including the compliance Supplement to OMB Circular A -133, if the RECIPIENT expends $500,000 or more in a year in Federal funds. The $500,000 threshold for each year is a cumulative total of all federal funding from all sources. The RECIPIENT must forward a copy of the audit along with the RECIPIENT'S response and the final corrective action plan to the DEPARTMENT within ninety (90) days of the date of the audit report. I. PERFORMANCE REPORTING The RECIPIENT shall submit progress reports to the DEPARTMENT with each payment request or such other schedule as set forth in the Special Conditions. The RECIPIENT shall also report in writing to the DEPARTMENT any problems, delays or adverse conditions which will materially affect their ability to meet project objectives or time schedules. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or proposed and any assistance needed from the DEPARTMENT to resolve the situation. Payments may be withheld if required progress reports are not submitted. Quarterly reports shall cover the periods January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October I through December 31. Reports shall be due within thirty (30) days following the end of the quarter being reported. J. COMPENSATION Page 10 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant 1. Method of compensation. Payment shall normally be made on a reimbursable basis as specified in the grant agreement and no more often than once per month. Each request for payment will be submitted by the RECIPIENT on State voucher request forms provided by the DEPARTMENT along with documentation of the expenses. Payments shall be made for each task/phase of the project, or portion thereof, as set out in the Scope of Work when completed by the RECIPIENT and approved as satisfactory by the Project Officer. The payment request form and supportive documents must itemize all allowable costs by major elements as described in the Scope of Work. Instructions for submitting the payment requests are found in "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans ", part IV, published by the DEPARTMENT. A copy of this document shall be furnished to the RECIPIENT. When payment requests are approved by the DEPARTMENT, payments will be made to the mutually agreed upon designee. Payment requests shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT and directed to the Project Officer assigned to administer this agreement. 2. Period of Compensation. Payments shall only be made for actions of the RECIPIENT pursuant to the grant/loan agreement and performed after the effective date and prior to the expiration date of this agreement, unless those dates are specifically modified in writing as provided herein. 3. Final Request(s) for Payment. The RECIPIENT should submit final requests for compensation within forty- five(45) days after the expiration date of this agreement and within fifteen (15) days after the end of a fiscal biennium. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement. 4. Performance Guarantee. The DEPARTMENT may withhold an amount not to exceed ten percent (10 %) of each reimbursement payment as security for the RECIPIENT's performance. Monies withheld by the DEPARTMENT may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the project(s) described herein, or a portion thereof, have been completed if, in the DEPARTMENT's sole discretion, such payment is reasonable and approved according to this agreement and, as appropriate, upon completion of an audit as specified under section J.6. herein. 5. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT may be subject to final audit by the DEPARTMENT and any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grant/loan shall be refunded to the DEPARTMENT by the RECIPIENT. 6. Mileage and Per Diem. If mileage and per diem are paid to the employees of the RECIPIENT or other public entities, it shall not exceed the amount allowed under state law for state employees. 7. Overhead Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in the Scope of Work hereunder. Page 11 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant K. TERMINATION 1. For Cause. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this agreement. In the event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT, to perform any obligation required of it by this agreement, the DEPARTMENT may refuse to pay any further funds thereunder and/or terminate this agreement by giving written notice of termination. A written notice of termination shall be given at least five working days prior to the effective date of termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, shall become Department property and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials. Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to the DEPARTMENT for damages sustained by the DEPARTMENT and/or the State of Washington because of any breach of agreement by the RECIPIENT. The DEPARTMENT may withhold payments for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the DEPARTMENT from the RECIPIENT is determined. 2. Insufficient Funds. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make payments is contingent on the availability of state and federal funds through legislative appropriation and state allotment. When this agreement crosses over state fiscal years the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent upon the appropriation of funds during the next fiscal year. The failure to appropriate or allot such funds shall be good cause to terminate this agreement as provided in paragraph K.1 above. When this agreement crosses the RECIPIENT's fiscal year, the obligation of the RECIPIENT to continue or complete the project described herein shall be contingent upon appropriation of funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body; Provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall preclude the DEPARTMENT from demanding repayment of ALL funds paid to the RECIPIENT in accordance with Section O herein. 3. Failure to Commence Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded herein within four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to terminate this agreement. L. WAIVER Waiver of any RECIPIENT default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will not be construed as a modification of the terms of this agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized representative of the DEPARTMENT. M. PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the DEPARTMENT retains a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the same for federal, state or local government purposes. Page 12 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Where federal funding is involved, the federal government may have a proprietary interest in patent rights to any inventions that are developed by the RECIPIENT as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200 -212. 2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish information of the DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos, reports, maps or other data, in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the DEPARTMENT. 3. Tangible Property Rights. The DEPARTMENT's current edition of "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans ", Part V, shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds furnished by the DEPARTMENT in the absence of state, federal statute(s), regulation(s), or policy(s) to the contrary or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in the Scope of Work. 4. Personal Property Furnished by the DEPARTMENT. When the DEPARTMENT provides personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to final payment by the DEPARTMENT. If said property is lost, stolen or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, the DEPARTMENT shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property. 5. Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities: a. Prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this agreement, the RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost of land/or facilities is fair and reasonable. b. The RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim which would impair the uses contemplated by this agreement. 6. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease or other'conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase or construction costs of such property. N. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to implement sustainable practices where and when possible. These practices include use of clean energy, and purchase and use of sustainably produced products (e.g. recycled paper). For more information, see www.ecy.wa.gov /sustainability.. O. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies paid to it as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance of this agreement including the satisfactory completion of the project described in the Scope of Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails, for any reason, to perform obligations required of it by this agreement, the RECIPIENT may, at the Page 13 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant DEPARTMENT's sole discretion, be required to repay to the DEPARTMENT all grant/loan funds disbursed to the RECIPIENT for those parts of the project that are rendered worthless in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT by such failure to perform. Interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per year from the time the DEPARTMENT demands repayment of funds. If payments have been discontinued by the DEPARTMENT due to insufficient funds as in Section K.2 above, the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. Any property acquired under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, may become the DEPARTMENT'S property and the RECIPIENT'S liability to repay monies shall be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property. P. PROJECT APPROVAL The extent and character of all work and services to be performed under this agreement by the RECIPIENT shall be subject to the review and approval of the DEPARTMENT through the Project Officer or other designated official to whom the RECIPIENT shall report and be responsible. In the event there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of the work to be done, the determination of the Project Officer or other designated official as to the extent and character of the work to be done shall govern. The RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for below. Q. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is not disposed of in writing shall be decided by the Project Officer or other designated official who shall provide a written statement of decision to the RECIPIENT. The decision of the Project Officer or other designated official shall be final and conclusive unless, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such statement, the RECIPIENT mails or otherwise furnishes to the Director of the DEPARTMENT a written appeal. In connection with appeal of any proceeding under this clause, the RECIPIENT shall have the opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of this appeal. The decision of the Director or duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive. Appeals from the Director's determination shall be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County. Review of the decision of the Director will not be sought before either the Pollution Control Hearings Board or the Shoreline Hearings Board. Pending final decision of dispute hereunder, the RECIPIENT shall proceed diligently with the performance of this agreement and in accordance with the decision rendered. R. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer, member, agent, or employee of either party to this agreement who exercises any function or responsibility in the review, approval, or carrying out of this agreement, shall participate in any decision which affects his /her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he /she is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall he /she have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this agreement or the proceeds thereof. S. INDEMNIFICATION 1. The DEPARTMENT shall in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's fees, and other costs related to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of Work. Page 14 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant 2 To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party shall indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents or employees arising out of this agreement. T. GOVERNING LAW This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. U. SEVERABILITV If any provision of this agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference V. PRECEDENCE In the event of inconsistency in this agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) applicable Federal and State statutes and regulations; (b) Scope of Work; (c) Special Terms and Conditions; (d) Any terms incorporated herein by reference including the "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans "; and (e) the General Terms and Conditions. SS -010 Rev. 04/04 Page 15 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Appendix B PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR ECOLOGY GRANTS FY2010 -2011 PHASE II STORMWATER PASS - THROUGH GRANTS The cities, towns, and counties listed below agree to partner under one grant agreement for the FY2010 -2011 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grants. The grant shall be administered on behalf of the partners by the Lead Phase II Local Government. Each partner local government is a city, town, or county permittee under the Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater General Permit or the Phase II Eastern Washington Municipal Stormwater General Permit. Lead Phase II Local Government: Phase II permit coverage number: Signature of authorized representative: Title Date Partner Local Government # 1: Phase II permit coverage number: Signature of authorized representative: Title Date Partner Local Government #2: Phase II permit coverage number: Signature of authorized representative: Title Date Page 16 of 17 Phase II Stormwater Pass - through Grant Partner Local Government #3: Phase II permit coverage number: Signature of authorized representative: Title Date Partner Local Government #4: Phase II permit coverage number: Signature of authorized representative: Title Date Ifyou require special accommodations 'or need this document in a format the visually impaired, call the Water Quality Program at 360 -407 -6502. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877 - 833 - 6341. Page 17 of 17 DATE SUBMITTED: October 7. 2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Grant of Utility Easement to Committee Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 Washington State Department of COUNCIL MEETING Date: October 21, 2009 Transportation ( WSDOT) for an Emergency Department: PW &U Generator Constructed at Fountain Park. Presenter: Michael Mecham Phone: 473 -5288 SUMMARY: With the construction of the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements (Tunnel), an emergency generator is needed for lighting and ventilation systems connected to the tunnel. The generator was initially sited within the perimeter of the Washington State Ferry (WSF) property, but was found to be in conflict with access at the site. WSDOT requested that the generator be placed on City property at the Fountain Park, behind the Naval Museum directly beside the ramp to the Bremerton Transportation Center. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Summary; 2. Utility Easement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTO . CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR — COUNCIL PRESIDENT: �� CONSENT AGENDA GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Utility Easement to WSDOT for Emergency Generator Constructed at Fountain Park and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action COUNCIL SUMMARY EMERGENCY GENERATOR EASEMENT AT FOUNTAIN PARK Summary With the construction of the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements (Tunnel), an emergency generator is needed for lighting and ventilation systems connected to the tunnel. The generator was initially sited within the perimeter of the Washington State Ferry (WSF) property but was found to be in conflict with access at the site. WSDOT requested that the generator be placed on City property at the Fountain Park, behind the Naval Museum directly beside the ramp to the Bremerton Transportation Center. Approval of the generator site was by the City's Economic Development Director. Fiscal Summary The area of the easement is 226 square feet. Using an approximate cost of $13 per square foot equates to a value of $2,938 if the full value were used. As part of the tunnel project, WSDOT made several changes to the Contract based on City requests. Cost to complete these changes was forgiven in exchange for the easement. Utility Easement Council Summary Return Address: City Clerk City of Bremerton 345 Sixth Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM Document Title(s): 1. Utility Easement Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: N/A Grantor(s): 1. City of Bremerton 0 Additional names on page of document. Grantee(s): 1. WSDOT Additional names on page of document. Legal Description: Gov't Lot 3 (NW '/4 of the NW '/4), Section 24, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, (abbreviated) W.M. F] Additional legal is on page 3 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel /Account Number: 3718 -001- 009 -0204 Project Name: SR 304 Pedestrian Access Improvements (Tunnel) UTILITY EASEMENT (Corporate) THIS INSTRUMENT made this day of , 200, by and between CITY OF BREMERTON (hereinafter "Grantor "), a Washington municipal corporation of Kitsap County, State of Washington and the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT), a Washington State Agency (hereinafter "Grantee "). WITNESSETH that Grantor for and in consideration of mutual benefits derived and/or other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, do by these presents grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm forever unto Grantee, its successors and /or assigns, a utility easement for an emergency generator, with necessary appurtenances, over, through, across and upon the following described property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: UTILITY EASEMENT (Corporate) - Page I of 3 SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED Grantee shall have the right, without prior institution of suit or proceeding at law, at times as may be necessary, to enter upon the above - referenced property and immediately adjacent incidental areas with the necessary equipment for the purposes of altering, installing, operating, maintaining, extending, constructing, repairing, and reconstructing the utility /utilities, or making connections to that system, without incurring any legal obligation or liability; provided, however, that the private improvements existing within the immediately adjacent incidental areas shall not be disturbed or destroyed, or in the event they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were immediately before the properties were entered upon by the Grantee. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall bind Grantor's successors and assigns and all future owners of the real property affected by this easement. GRANTOR: By: Its: DATE: (Notary Acknowledgment Appears on Next Page) UTILITY EASEMENT (Corporate) - Page 2 of 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KITSAP ) On this day of , 200_, before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared to me known to be the of , a corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that he /she /they was/were authorized to execute said instrument. -Notary Sea! Must Appear Within This Box - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH City Attorney R: \LEGAL \Forms \Easements \Utility Easement Form (Corporate) doc UTILITY EASEMENT (Corporate) - Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WSDOT GENERATOR AT FOUNTAIN PARK That portion of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton, as recorded in Volume 2 of the book of plats, Page 30, records of Kitsap County, Washington, being situate in Government Lot 3 of Section 24, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a cased monument at the intersection of First Street (Front Street per plat) and Pacific Avenue; thence South 88 °24'32" East along the centerline of said First Street 149.02 feet to a 3 inch surface brass monument; thence South 1 °36'57" West 35.00 feet to the southerly right of way margin of said First Street; thence North 88 °24'32" West along said southerly margin 14.00 feet to the westerly line of the alley in Block 10 of said Plat of the Town of Bremerton; thence South 1'35'20" West along said westerly line 108.35 feet to a brass monument stamped PSNS2; thence South 38 °18'20" East 70.77 feet; thence South 29 °19'15" East 81.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 59 °46'35" West 12.36 feet to the corner of a cyclone wire fence; thence along said fence, South 33'27'13" East 19.43 feet; thence North 59 0 46'35" East 10.96 feet; thence leaving said cyclone fence, North 29'19'15" West 19.40 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Consisting of 226 square feet. 812412009 DATE SUBMITTED: AGENDA BILL 6A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ......................................................... ............................... SUBJECT: Public Hearing and adoption of Committee Meeting Date: 10/14/2009 Resolution No. 3100 approving application COUNCIL MEETING Date: 10/21/2009 for CDBG Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Department: DCD — Block Grant funding for Bremerton Boardwalk Project Presenter: M. Vila construction. Phone: 360 - 473 -5375 SUMMARY: On August 26, 2009 staff annouced to City Council the award of a $1,750,000 HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant for the Bremerton Boardwalk Project, and received permission from Council to apply for CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee funding, a condition of accepting the BEDI grant. Staff has developed an application which we present to Council for consideration and approval. If approved, the application will be submitted to HUD for approval and inclusion in the City's 2010 CDBG Annual Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution A/o. 31 oo Exhibit A — Section 108 Loan Application Exhibit B — Section 108 Program information 2. Staff Memo FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Loan funding of $2,800,000; 20 year repayment schedule with interest to be determined (projected rate is 4% - 6 %), resulting in estimated annual debt service of $210,000 to $244,000 for y ars. Pledge REET funds for repayment. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: ro COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA ❑ GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3LOO approving the CDBG Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Application for the Bremerton Boardwalk Project construction, and authorize CDBG staff to submit the application to HUD for approval; authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the contracts with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented once HUD has approved the application and all funding and permits have been secured. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action RESOLUTION NO. 3100 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, approving the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Application for the Boardwalk Project. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is an entitlement community which receives a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) each year from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2008 the City's 2009 CDBG /HOME Policy Plan was approved by City Council, including provisions for participation in the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton / Kitsap County Consolidated Plan, which provides an overall strategy for housing and community development, includes provisions for participation in the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program; and WHEREAS, HUD allows an entitlement jurisdiction such as the City of Bremerton to apply for up to 5 times its last annual entitlement; under this regulation Bremerton's maximum allowable Section 108 loan capacity is $2,867,300; and WHEREAS, the CDBG program received one application for Section 108 funding from the City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities in the amount of $2,800,000 for use in construction of the Bremerton Waterfront Boardwalk; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Waterfront Boardwalk project received a grant of $1,750,000 from the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, contingent on qualifying for a Section 108 Loan of no less than $2,800,000; and WHEREAS, repayment shall commit City BEET funds of $210,000 to $244,000 per year based on projected 4% - 6% interest rate and shall be paid over a 20 year period; and WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan and the City's 2009 Policy Plan citizen participation plan set guidelines for public participation required for utilizing Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton held a 30 -day public comment period commencing September 21", and which was announced on September 16` at the Bremerton City Council meeting and published September 23` in the Kitsap Sun; and 1 2009 CDBG Section 108 Loan Application WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG /HOME staff on Monday, September 21, 2009 published on the City's website information about the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, a summary about the proposed loan application, and made available the entire text of proposed loan application for public review and comment; and WHEREAS, comments were received during the advertised public comment period, which were forwarded to City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG /HOME staff presents the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program application for the Bremerton Boardwalk; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program application attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted, will be forwarded to HUD for approval and, if approved, incorporated via amendment into the 2009 Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one 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. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2009. CECIL MCCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk 2 2009 CDBG Section 108 Loan Application Exhibit A CITY OF BREMERTON BREMERTON BOARDWALK PROJECT SECTION 108 APPLICATION BEDI Grant Number: B- 09 -BD -53 -8002 Section 108 Loan Request $2.8 Million Total Project Financing $11 Million Loan Term 20 years Interest Rate: Anticipated interest rate of 4% to 6% Loan Servicina $210,000 to $244,000 annual payments based on anticipated interest rate. Tim Design work 2008 through 2011; initial construction phase begins 2012; final construction phase begins 2014. Loan and BEDI funds expenditure will begin with initial construction phase. Project Description Construction of Boardwalk and cleanup of adjacent brownfield located at Evergreen Park extension National Objective Principally benefit low- and very-low income residents; area benefit. Eligible Activity: Public Facilities and Improvements (24 CFR 570.201(c) Coll 1) Dedicate Real Estate Excise Tax funds for capital improvements; 2) Pledge of $2,800,000 of current and future CDBG entitlement award funds. Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project 1. Project Description Purpose: Remediation and redevelopment of a contaminated brownfields property into an expanded waterfront park, and construction of a 3,200 -ft long Boardwalk that will link the park to the City's Urban Center. The proposed improvements are presented in the attached artists renderings (see Attachments I - V). Objectives: the project will remove blight adjacent to a public park and residential neighborhood, and will provide a significant public amenity that will improve the quality of life in Bremerton, attract tourists, and consequently spur economic activity. Location: the project is located in the City of Bremerton's urban center, between Evergreen Rotary Park, located at 1400 Park Avenue, Bremerton WA 98337, and the existing Louis Mentor Boardwalk, located at Second Street and Washington Avenue. Please see Attachment VI — Plan View, and Attachment VII - Map. Ownership: the park land is owned by the City of Bremerton, the boardwalk will be owned by the City of Bremerton, and will be mostly located on property owned by the State of Washington. A land lease with the State will be executed prior to construction. Businesses Assisted: The project is construction of a public facility, therefore no private business will directly receive funding from either the Section 108 or BEDI programs. However, the City had an economic analysis of the Boardwalk Project completed as part of the design and planning (see Attachment VIII — "The Economic Impacts of the Bremerton Boardwalk "). The analysis estimated that the Boardwalk Project would spur between $37M and $64M in annual economic activity, and would create between 564 and 1,010 new jobs after year five following completion. One specific example of growth contingent on the boardwalk is documented in the support letter from M.S. Cavoad (on file), which indicates that $185M in proposed development is contingent on completion of the Boardwalk Project and Evergreen Park Expansion. To date, M.S. Cavoad has invested more than $30 million in a variety of development projects in Bremerton. Page 2 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project 2. Sources and Uses Sources of project funding: Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 WWRP - Local Parks 500,000 450,000 50,000 (secured grant) _ _ - WWRP - Trails 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 (secured grant) _ - ALEA (secured grant) 500,000 500,000 - - NOAA shoreline cleanup 110,000 110,000 (secured grant) _ More Fish Partnership 50,000 50,000 Fund (secured grant) - - HUD -BEDI 1,750,000 - - 769,231 - 980,769 (grant) HUD Section 108 debt 2,800,000 - - 1,230,769 - 1,569,231 Rotary Club (offered grant) 100,000 100,000 - - - _ DOE (grant amendment req'd) 90,000 90,000 - _ _ _ Unidentified funding 3,200,000 7 35,000 820,000 35,000 35,000 1,575,000 Total sources 11,100,000 2,035,000 870,000 4,035,000 35,000 4,125,000 Uses of project funding: Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Boardwalk design 8,485,000 150,000 335,000 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 and construction Boardwalk design and construction; 2,615,000 1,885,000 535,000 35,000 35,000 125,000 Park development & shoreline restoration Total uses 11,100,000 2,035,000 870,000 4,035,000 35,000 4,125,000 20090820 CIP Page 3 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project Pm1act Stroctuts and Partkinants Principal Parties: The project is a capital improvement that will be owned exclusively by the City of Bremerton. The project is being managed by the City of Bremerton. The City will competitively bid the construction, and award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. All debt necessary for the project will be borrowed by the City of Bremerton. The City of Bremerton and its CDBG staff have the experience, organization, and financial resources to implement this BEDI /Section 108 funded project. The City of Bremerton's project support team consists of: Tom Knuckey, PE, Managing Engineer, City of Bremerton Public Works & Facilities: Tom is the City's Project Manager for the Boardwalk Project. Tom has over 20 years of experience in design and construction of municipal capital improvements, including management of over $60 million in grant and loan- funded capital improvement projects in Bremerton since 1998. Bill Webb, PG, Division Manager, Parametrix: The City competitively awarded a $3 million design and permitting contract for the Boardwalk Project to Parametrix, a Pacific Northwest consulting firm ranked as a top design firm by ENR. Parametrix has over 500 employees, annual revenues of over $90 million dollars, and specializes in all disciplines of engineering, architecture and environmental services. Bill Webb is the Parametrix Project Manager for the Boardwalk Project, overseeing the design, permitting, and overall project delivery. Bill has over 20 years experience with municipal project management, design and construction of waterfront and in- water projects, delivering capital improvements of over $100 million. A. Andrew Parks, CPA, Director of Financial Services, City of Bremerton: As Bremerton's Finance Director, Andy is responsible for the City's annual budget in excess of $150 Million Dollars. Andy has over 24 -years of experience in financial services, accounting, and management of public and private budgets and organizations. Andy will provide fiscal oversight and approval for the project financing plan. Marie Vila, CDBG Program Administrator, City of Bremerton: Marie oversees strategy for and management of the City's annual HUD Entitlement (CDBG, HOME and Shelter -Plus Care programs). Her responsibilities include program development and implementation, budgeting and planning, and compliance activities. Marie has worked with the City of Bremerton Block Grant program for four years, and has previous experience working with other Federal programs. Section 108 Loan funds will be managed by CDBG Program staff, with assistance of the Finance Department. Marie will coordinate the BEDI /Section 108 reporting and compliance requirements associated with the requested funds. Page 4 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project 3. Repayment Schedule and Source of Funds r. Repayment Schedule: Section 108 Loan proceeds are not anticipated until 2011. At that time, the full amount of the loan ($2.8 million) is anticipated in the summer of 2011, when it is expected HUD will sell marketable securities. The anticipated range of annual debt service is approximately $210,000 (4% TIC) to $244,000 (6% TIC) Amount of Payments Year Borrowing Principal Balance 2011 2,800,000 2,800,000 2012 - 95,000 2,705,000 2013 98,000 2,607,000 2014 102,000 2,505,000 2015 106,000 2,399,000 2016 110,000 2,289,000 2017 114,000 2,175,000 2018 119,000 2,056,000 2019 124,000 1,932,000 2020 129,000 1,803,000 2021 134,000 1,669,000 2022 139,000 1,530,000 2023 145,000 1,385,000 2024 151,000 1,234, 000 2025 157,000 1,077,000 2026 163,000 914,000 2027 169,000 745,000 2028 176,000 569,000 2029 183,000 386,000 2030 191,000 195,000 2031 195,000 - Page 5 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project Source of Funds: The City has identified two sources of funds to repay the loan: 1) The City will use a portion of its Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) to repay the Section 108 Loan. The anticipated range of annual debt service is $210,000 (4% TIC) to $244,000 (6% TIC). The City has received an average of $880,000 in REET income annually during the past 10 years. Current commitments total $560,000 per year. The completion of the Boardwalk Project is projected to generate additional REET of $5,000 per $1,000,000 in real estate sales. 2) The City will pursue the creation of a revitalization area to include the project area of impact. Upon creation of the revitalization area, an application will be submitted to the State of Washington for consideration of the formation of the area. Successful creation of the revitalization area will provide tax increment opportunities presently unavailable. 4. Collateral 1) The City pledges its Real Estate Excise Taxes as collateral for the Section 108 Loan. 2) As a requirement of the Section 108 Program, the City must pledge its present and future CDBG entitlement awards as collateral for Section 108 funded projects. The City may pledge up to 5 x its last award amount of $573,461 (2009), or $2,867,305. For the proposed application, the required pledge amount will be $2,800,000. Page 6 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project 5. Proiect Implementation Presubmission /Citizen Participation: General The Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton jointly publish a 5 -year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is reviewed every 5 years. The current plan expires at the end of 2010; staff is presently coordinating the plan update, to be effective 2011. Development of a consolidated plan includes wide community involvement through activities like public meetings and work groups. The Plan is then presented to the community for a 30 -day public comment period and considered for adoption by Bremerton City Council at a public hearing. The City utilizes the Consolidated Plan as an overall strategy for housing and community development in Kitsap County and Bremerton, and it is a prerequisite to receiving federal funds. It guides the City in its consideration and appropriation of the HUD funding. The Consolidated Plan contains statistical information, vision statements, policies and strategies that guide future development. It consists, of the following ingredients: 1. a citizen participation plan outlines the planning process; 2. a community profile analyzes demographic trends; 3. a needs assessment outlines housing and community development needs; 4. a five year strategy describes the long -term plans; and 5. a one year action plan describes proposed activities for the coming year. The City also publishes an annual Policy Plan, which sets parameters for the City's management of its HUD entitlement, including a summary of the citizen participation plan, grant application and review and selection processes, and eligibility and implementation requirements for grant funded projects. The Policy Plan is reviewed each year, presented to the community for a 30 -day public comment period and considered for adoption by Bremerton City Council at a public hearing. Both the Consolidated Plan and the Policy Plan explicitly include the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program as a financing option for the City to consider. The Policy Plan sets forth details such as the range of activities eligible for Section 108 funding, technical assistance available, and the citizen participation process required. The City's citizen participation process was developed in accordance with 24 CFR 570.704(a)(2). Page 7 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project Public Comment Period In accordance with its citizen participation plan, the City of Bremerton has provided adequate notice for opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed Section 108 Loan application. • 8/26/2009 City Council Meeting: Staff announced award of BEDI grant and asked for Council approval to prepare a Section 108 Loan application. Council approval granted. • 9/16/2009 City Council Meeting: Staff announced a thirty day public comment period would commence on Wednesday, September 21, 2009, concurrent with posting of loan application details and draft application on the City's website. Staff name and phone number were provided for members of the public to contact with comments. Council meetings are broadcast on Bremerton - Kitsap Access Television. • 9/21/2009 Section 108 draft proposed loan application and attachments from City of Bremerton Public Works posted on City of Bremerton website for public viewing and comment. Information about Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program posted. Additionally, a link to the proposed Section 108 Loan application was posted as a "headline" on the City's homepage for visibility. Web posting includes but is not limited to: • The range of activities proposed • The extent to which low- and very-low income persons will benefit • Displacement (none) • Opportunities to make public comment • Public hearing date and time 9 9/23/2009 Legal notice published in Kitsap Sun announcing receipt of Section 108 proposed loan application and public opportunity to comment on proposal. • 10/21/2009 City Council Meeting: CDBG staff presentation and council discussion of Section 108 proposed loan application. Public Hearing held to gather additional public comment. Council action to approve the application for submission to HUD. Environmental Review The project is currently undergoing the NEPA review. A biological assessment and several supporting studies have been completed in support of the JARPA permit submittal. The JARPA was submitted in early 2009, and has since been suspended while project scope issues are being coordinated with regulatory agencies, and the local Native American Tribe in response to comments received during the NEPA public comment period. The application will be re- activated by December, 2009 and all project permitting will be completed in 2010. Page 8 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project Estimated Project Schedule 2009 Complete Remedial Action at former Chevron Property (Park Expansion Property,) and submit permits for the project. 2010 Perform first round of groundwater monitoring at park expansion property, and coordinate a second Agreed Order with the Washington State Department of Ecology to implement the Cleanup Action Plan. Complete permitting for boardwalk. 2011 Begin park construction, and complete boardwalk final design. 2012 Complete park construction and begin boardwalk construction. Section 108 loan funds will be expended beainnina in 2012 2014 Complete boardwalk construction. Funding Status The various sources of funding are either in -hand, or have been formally offered by the various agencies. Currently the project has raised 71 % of anticipated project costs. Please refer to Section 2, Sources and Uses, for status of funding commitments. 6. Elhoible Activity The Waterfront Boardwalk Project is eligible under 24 CFR 570.201(c)— Public Facilities and Improvements. 7. National Objective The Waterfront Boardwalk Project meets a National Objective by principally benefitting low and very-low income persons on an area basis (24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)). The Boardwalk will be a regional amenity, serving the entire Bremerton population with recreational benefits, waterfront access and a pedestrian byway. Future benefits include growth in tourism, jobs and property values. At this time, census figures indicate that 61 % of Bremerton residents earn less than 80% of the area median income 8. Public 8enebt Standards Because this project is not a special economic development activity, the public benefit requirement described at 24 CFR 570.209(b) is not applicable. Page 9 of 10 Section 108 Loan Application to City of Bremerton Applicant: City of Bremerton Public Works Project: Bremerton Boardwalk Project Contacts Marie Vila City of Bremerton Block Grant Programs Administrator 3456 th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 ph: 360 -473 -5375 fax: 360- 473 -5138 marie.vilaO-ci.bremerton.wa.us Page 10 of 10 L jO# , � s A"" 1 ` # t 4, 7T t .. 41 Y i : 77i rr_ Vi- i� }Z y 1 �. �J , 3 ► , 4 �� I �,a A + L 'r4a i'xr;.sf L+'ee - - 4�� , E e l� "� �* I ) • _ 7~Cs t � r'Ki � 5 J r 1 . a i...w � �ZG l_tt `� C�r F ' y iY1 ''ll 1�`4., `1 1� + ����•�/ { , .dam, t'.� v r { r 3 �• r �' �+ tt • i � Ir a (. } / v .�i�. 7hi 1 rji ( `tt 4 et hq T. ! 4. r r J a �s3tLr �,.,, "- �Yr^I' mss n i �' i , : ', :; . � • +: J ` t F f t ( fe f Y L wF {4"ar . ;, ,� " Y J y ' � � ri ,F 1' 1 r �_ �� 3r •t�' � 1 � f 1 .: � ' 4 } .+ 1{ �. �>, � w .(` J, �a •v. .> >< �I r � .�.� a \�: e�g�' S ,�- , `''�;,�� � {Y'" J S� f� ♦. ` ^ �l�.�h, / t ' r � � 7 j� ; � rL i� - 7� �� - � �k =..i,- It -+.r. �.`4. ^s-f f: r�d7 r !. n i� r .cl blf��♦ �j. _ ,�. " Exhibit A Attachment III g r�- l� r 1 f a te. r C ` R I, .',r�`�:�� � - � w I•'� � r Ic.� �a� •`� � { Y y xl; }r, wow J 5' Wi -. •� `, (l:i��� �r't �� _�+'� ,t � Ti ~' � � •` tS , -'r'!' '�` I �� � . tit � . , •,r'r ��w r r t i i. `}�`, .l� .. � , ' +•SSA, rR i flow +r.- i • Exhibit A ' Attachment VI �r Louis Mentor Boardwalk (existing) r 1 •r�!° E � 4" Street +! C r f r` f �+ _,•, -�- -,. .�1 V" Street r' k � • � 1�1ti ° +} �a 6" Street ' ,i Washington Avenue S i It l� 1 1 � �5, �•' � j �a I�� I I I t i ll , -� -.�� ' tis Marlette Bridge �- a a�011 I 4 Iiilliil` II Evergreen Park} Lf i � '/ fC� -�',ti 5 Bremerton Waterfront � ° M�, _ Boardwalk Project Section 108 Application Attachment I - Plan View Exhibit A Attachment VII 7 �156 St $th*et St ��'`-- �ti E-1 Ak S j (� ? I 9D lu T (Adil 711A P-Pr r 15th CD c::Z, O ' S � � 0, 16:h St � �� 14th St - C C I st I I st Nj , IE 130, st Uth St rn E j Mh M 'Wh St tttnst 0 >� �D < a 2th'Sl Ll 0 Llth SLF4 6 E IthSt tttt 91h El D E 10th St E ift St �St 171, > 0 0 0 11 � ft M 9 & Eft St L , --'j A t 0 0 0 "St 0 Li 3 umla st 13reffmrm ttunrciI St aoa A&i Ta 10 k v f �Al �� 02M GouBW - Map daft 0=09 TWO ABM Exhibit A The Economic Attachment VIII Impacts of Bremerton Boardwalk Prepared for the City of • ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING 888 SW Fifth Avenue 99 W Tenth Avenue Suite 1460 Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97204 Eugene, Oregon 97401 503 -222 -6060 541 -687 -0051 November 2007 The Economic Impacts of the Bremerton Boardwalk ECONorthwest November 14, 2007 Contents ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................... ............................... i KeyFindings .................................................................................. ..............................i Background...................................................................................... ............................... l TheBoardwalk Project ................................................................. ............................... l The Boardwalk Community .......................................................... ............................... 3 The Demand for Boardwalk Amenities ......................................... ............................... 6 CommunitySupport ................................................................. ............................... 6 National Demand for Outdoor Recreation ................................. ............................... 7 Demand by Non -Local Visitors ................................................ ............................... 8 Demand at Similar Facilities Elsewhere in Washington ............ ............................... 9 Economic Impact Methodology ........................................................ .............................11 Classifying Economic Impacts ..................................................... .............................12 Impactsby Phase ...................................................................... .............................12 Typesof Impacts ...................................................................... .............................12 Measures of Impacts ................................................................. .............................12 Key Issues Affecting this Analysis ............................................... .............................13 The Base Case, Alternative Case, and Net Impacts ................... .............................13 Attribution of Causality ............................................................ .............................14 Economic Impact Results ................................................................. .............................14 Construction Impacts .................................................................... .............................14 OperatingImpacts ........................................................................ .............................16 Tourism - Related Economic Impacts ....................................... ............................... 17 Appendix A: Comments from the City of Bremerton's Survey ....... ............................... 37 Comments on Commuting: ........................................................................................ 37 Comments on Parking: .............................................................................................. 38 Comments on Safety and ADA Access: ..................................................................... 38 Comments on Economical Impact, Tourism, Shopping: ............................................. 39 Comments on Recreation/Walking/Health & Fitness: ................................................ 40 Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page ii Tables Table 1: Economic Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) .............................. ............................iii Table 2: Economic Impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) ........................ ............................... v Table 3: U.S. Census 2000 — Selected Characteristics ........................ ..............................4 Table 4: Population Statistics ........................................................... ............................... 5 Table 5: City of Bremerton Informal Survey Results ........................ ............................... 7 Table 6: National Outdoor Recreation Statistics, 2000 (unweighted data) ........................ 8 Table 7: Top Ten Activities of Visitors to Kitsap County ................. ............................... 9 Table 8: Economic Impacts From Construction (2007 dollars) ......... .............................15 Table 9: Fiscal Impacts from Construction (2007 dollars) ................. .............................16 Table 10: Travel- Generated Employment in 2005 (Selected Counties) ..........................18 Table 11: Matrix of Possible Changes in Tourism (Visitor Days) ... ............................... 20 Table 12: Matrix of Changes in Tourist- Related Spending .............. ............................... 21 Table 13: Matrix of Tourism - Generated Job Impacts ...................... ............................... 22 Table 14: Economic Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) ........................ ............................... 24 Table 15: Bremerton Job Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) ................. ............................... 26 Table 16: Fiscal Impacts for State and Local Governments (Fair Share Scenario) .......... 27 Table 17: Economic impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) ..................... ............................... 29 Table 18: Job impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) ............................... ...... .......................... 31 Table 19: Fiscal impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) ........................... ............................... 31 Table 20: Linkages Between Potential Economic Development and the Bremerton and Kitsap County Economies (impacts per 10 direct jobs) ........... ............................... 35 Table 21: Linkages Between Consumption Spending by Households and the Bremerton and Kitsap County Economies (Impacts Per $1,000,000 in Consumption Spending) ............................................................................................... ............................... 36 Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page iii Figures Figure 1: Employment Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) ...................... ............................... iv Figure 2: Employment Impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) .................... .............................vi Figure 3: The Proposed Bremerton Boardwalk .................................. ..............................1 Figure 4: Comparison of Average Annual Incomes in 2006 .............. ............................... 6 Figure 5: Visitor Statistics for Wenatchee Riverfront Park ................ .............................10 Figure 6: Visitor Statistics for Chelan Riverwalk Park .................... ............................... l 1 Figure 7: Visitor Trends Under Two Scenarios ............................... ............................... 23 Figure 8: Changes in Employment (Fair Share Scenario) ................ ............................... 25 Figure 9: Annual and Cumulative Tax Impacts for State and Local Governments (Fair ShareScenario) ...................................................................... ............................... 28 Figure 10: Changes in Employment (Top Quintile Scenario) .......... ............................... 30 Figure 11: Annual and Cumulative Tax Impacts for State and Local Governments (Top QuintileScenario) ..................................................................... .............................32 Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page iv The Economic Impacts of the Bremerton Boardwalk ECONorthwest' November 14, 2007 Executive Summary Historically, the City of Bremerton has been known as a blue - collar, military town. Over the last few years, however, through the efforts of local government, community, and business leaders, the city has started to evolve into a more attractive place to visit, work, and live. The transition has been driven by Navy- related tourism and Bremerton's accessibility to the increasingly congested City of Seattle. Recognizing an opportunity to extend Bremerton's tourism cluster beyond the Navy, leaders have been forging ahead with projects to improve the ambiance and sense of community along the waterfront. The City of Bremerton has proposed building an over -water Boardwalk that will stretch almost two- thirds of a mile from the downtown Harborside area to Evergreen Park. With strong support of City officials, local businesses, and the community, the Boardwalk is a multi- objective project that will improve the quality of life, attract visitors, generate economic activity, stimulate economic development, and help to make Bremerton a more healthy community. Key Findings The City of Bremerton retained ECONorthwest to evaluate the economic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Bremerton Boardwalk. The following are the key findings from this study. 1. The Boardwalk project has strong community support. Informal surveys conducted by the City of Bremerton show strong community support for the amenities the Boardwalk will provide. With well over 300 completed surveys, respondents indicated they would most likely use the Boardwalk when visiting other amenities in the downtown Harborside area (66 percent); attending fairs or other events on the Boardwalk (59 percent); or to enjoy shopping, dining, and entertainment downtown (53 percent). Views of wildlife and maritime activities, and access to the shoreline also ranked high among respondents. In terms of fitness- related activities, respondents indicated that they would use the Boardwalk for walking (65 percent), bicycling (30 percent), jogging (22 percent), and This report was prepared by ECONorthwest's Portland office for the City of Bremerton. Alec Josephson was the project manager for this analysis and was the primary author of this report. Mr. Josephson received valuable contributions from Bob Whelan, Senior Project Manager, and Jessica Smith, Research Analyst. Questions regarding the report should be directed to ECONorthwest's Portland office at (503) 222 -6060. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page i medical/rehabilitation services (6 percent). Importantly, survey results show that the Boardwalk would accommodate the fitness activities of both local and non -local visitors across all age groups. "My wife and I have been reading about the proposed Bremerton boardwalk project and are very excited about the possibilities it offers to our city. Bremerton is undergoing a downtown renovation... The boardwalk will be a significant, spectacular contribution to that revitalization... We look forward to visiting the area and strolling along the new boardwalk once it is completed. It will definitely be a destination for us and our out -of -town guests. " — Survey respondent 2. The Boardwalk will accommodate the growing demand for outdoor recreation activities. The City of Bremerton's informal survey results are similar to those from the most recent National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Both surveys showed that the demand for outdoor recreation principally, those activities offered by the Boardwalk such as walking, biking, hiking, wildlife viewing, learning activities, family gatherings, beach and waterside access —is strong and growing. Indeed, with over 180.6 million participants nationwide (or 87.1 percent of those over 16 years old), the most popular outdoor activity is walking. Given this strong demand for the types of amenities the Boardwalk will offer, visitation is expected to be robust. Although comparable Boardwalk facilities in the Pacific Northwest are scarce, two riverfront parks in central Washington have experienced significant and growing visitor numbers. According to visitor counts collected by the Chelan County PUD, annual visitors to the Wenatchee Riverfront Park increased from 243,000 in 1986 to 1.9 million in 2006. Further north, the Chelan Riverwalk Park entertained 172,000 visitors in 2006. 3. The $24.5 million in spending associated with site clean up, sewer enhancements, and Boardwalk construction will temporarily support almost 280 full- and part -time jobs over a two -year project time period. Although the construction project will occur in Bremerton, much of the economic activity that it generates will spill over into other areas and sectors of the Kitsap County economy. Construction of the Boardwalk would directly generate approximately 200 full- and part-time jobs and $7.9 million in wages for workers in Kitsap County. As businesses purchase goods and services from other businesses and households spend their incomes, this construction activity will ripple through the Kitsap County economy. Ultimately, through this multiplier process, the Boardwalk project will ultimately account for $27.2 million in economic activity, $10.2 million in wages, $2.3 million in income for small business owners, and almost 280 full- and part-time jobs. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page ii 4. The Boardwalk will directly benefit Bremerton's growing tourism cluster. This economic activity will spill over into other business sectors in Bremerton and elsewhere in Kitsap County. Spending by non -local visitors to Bremerton means additional sales for local businesses, and jobs and income for the local labor force. This spending will, in turn, have multiplier effects on other sectors of the local Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. Indeed, the Puget Sound Regional Council ( "PSRC ") and others view tourism as a key economic cluster that can facilitate economic development in the central Puget Sound region. The economic and fiscal impacts associated with the Boardwalk for two possible scenarios are summarized below. (Per PSRC Economic Development Grant Application guidelines, economic impacts are reported at two years and eight years after the Boardwalk has opened.) Table 1 summarizes the economic impacts for Bremerton and the rest of Kitsap County under a "fair share" scenario, where the Boardwalk produces an initial 10 percent bump in visitation and then enables Bremerton to achieve a growth rate in tourism that is comparable to the state as whole. Table l: Economic Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) Study Area / - Type of Impact Year 2 " -Year 8 Bremerton Output $9,734,000 $14,925,000 Wages $3,415,000 $5,236,000 Business Income $465,000 $712,000 Jobs 159 245 Rest of Kltsap County Output $5,641,000 $9,365,000 Wages $1,454,000 $2,112,000 Business Income $827,000 $1,699,000 Jobs 87 174 Total Kltsap County Output $15,375,000 $23,575,000 Wages $4,869,000 $7,465,000 Business Income $1,291,000 $1,980,000 Jobs 246 378 State and local tax revenues $939,000 $1,440,000 Under this fair share scenario, the increased economic activity associated with the Boardwalk will generate the following impacts two years after opening: • Approximately $9.7 million in economic activity, including $3.4 million in wages, $465,000 in small- business income, and almost 160 full- and part-time jobs in Bremerton; • Approximately $5.6 million in economic activity, including $1.5 million in wages, $827,000 in small- business income, and 87 full- and part -time jobs elsewhere in Kitsap County; and Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page iii • Almost $940,000 in tax revenues for state and local governments. In year eight, the impacts generated by the Boardwalk under this fair share scenario are significant and include: • Almost $15.0 million in economic activity, $5.2 million in wages, and 245 full- and part-rime jobs in Bremerton; • Another $9.4 million in output, $2.1 million in wages, and 174 full- and part-time jobs for workers and businesses elsewhere in Kitsap County; and • Approximately $1.44 million in tax revenues for state and local governments. The economic impacts described above represent the annual impacts two years and eight years after the Boardwalk opens. Figure 1, below, shows the employment impacts on Bremerton and elsewhere in Kitsap County, and how they evolve over time under this fair share scenario. The income reported in year two and year eight represents the wages and business income for workers and small- business owners in each of those years. Figure 1: Employment Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) Year 8 Income = 400 59,445,480 300 Year 2 Income = c E6,159,990 E 1= r 200 a m LL LL 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Bremerton ❑ Elsewhere in Kitsap County Given the strong demand for the outdoor opportunities it offers, easy access to shopping and recreational activities in downtown Bremerton, and close proximity to regional transportation assets and population centers such as Seattle and Tacoma, it is possible the Boardwalk will become a unique recreation destination that generates a significant increase in tourism to Bremerton. A second, more optimistic scenario has Bremerton experiencing an initial 20 percent bump in tourism and an average annual growth rate going forward that places it in the top quintile group of counties in Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page iv Washington. The economic impacts for Bremerton and the rest of Kitsap County in year two and year eight under this top quintile scenario are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Economic Impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) ,Study Area / Type of Impact'- Year 2 Year 8 Bremerton Output $20,616,000 $40,876,000 Wages $7,232,700 $14,341,000 Business Income $984,000 $1,951,000 Jobs 337 671 Rest of Kitsap County Output $11,947,700 $25,647,000 Wages $3,079,000 $5,783,000 Business Income $1,751,000 $4,654,000 Jobs 185 478 Total Kitsap County Output $32,563,700 $64,566,000 Wages $10,311,700 $20,445,000 Business Income $2,735,000 $5,423,000 Jobs 522 1,035 State and local tax revenues $1,989,400 $3,944,000 Under this top quintile scenario, the economic activity associated with the Boardwalk will generate the following impacts two years after opening: • Approximately $20.6 million in economic activity, including $7.2 million in wages, $984,000 in small- business income, and almost 340 full- and part-time jobs in Bremerton; • Almost $12.0 million in economic activity, including $3.1 million in wages, $1.8 million in small- business income, and 185 full- and part -time jobs elsewhere in Kitsap County; and 0 Approximately $2.0 million in tax revenues for state and local governments. Under this top quintile scenario, the impacts associated with the Boardwalk in year eight are significant and include: • Over $40.8 million in economic activity, including $14.3 million in wages, $2.0 million in small- business income, and approximately 670 full- and part -time jobs in Bremerton; • Approximately $25.7 million in economic activity, including $5.8 million in wages, $4.7 million in small- business income, and almost 480 full- and part-time jobs elsewhere in Kitsap County; and • Approximately $3.9 million in tax revenues for state and local governments. Figure 2 shows the employment impacts on Bremerton and elsewhere in Kitsap County, and how they evolve over time under this top quintile scenario. The income Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page v reported in year two and year eight represents the wages and business income for workers and small- business owners in each of those years. Figure 2: Employment Impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) 1.200 Income 8 lneome a $28,868,500 1.000 - -- - - - an ' 800 m _ E Year 2 P7 InCOfn9 a _ A 600 a s,3.o46,eoo OD _L 400 - LL 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 G Bremerton 13 Elsewhere in Krtsap County 5. Interviews with business and community leaders show strong support for the Boardwalk and the economic activity it is expected to generate. Respondents were unanimous that the Boardwalk would enhance the economic development potential of Bremerton. New private investment in Bremerton will generate local jobs, and have spillover impacts for businesses and workers elsewhere in Kitsap County. Families moving to Bremerton will have similar effects. ECONorthwest estimates that every $1.0 million in consumption spending by new households will generate: • Approximately 7.6 full- and part-time jobs and $203,000 in wages in Bremerton; and • 1.7 full- and part -time jobs and $58,200 in wages elsewhere in Kitsap County. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page vi The Economic Impacts of the Bremerton Boardwalk The City of Bremerton asked ECONorthwest to evaluate the economic impacts associated with the proposed Bremerton Boardwalk. This report describes ECONorthwest's analysis and results. Background The Boardwalk Project Although initially proposed to improve access to and maintenance of the Washington Avenue beach sewer line, the 3,200 foot -long, over -water Boardwalk represents a key component of Bremerton's current waterfront revitalization efforts. Shown in Figure 3, the Boardwalk has evolved into a multi- objective project that City officials believe can improve the quality of life, generate economic activity, stimulate additional economic development, and make Bremerton a more healthy community. Figure 3: The Proposed Bremerton Boardwalk I i 64 3 t' • a� Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 1 Similar to many cities around the United States, one of the biggest challenges facing the City of Bremerton is downtown revitalization. The Boardwalk will complement current economic development in downtown Bremerton and help to stimulate additional private investment. Projects that have been completed or are in progress include: • The Kitsap Conference Center and the 105 -room, Hampton Inn & Suites Waterfront Hotel; • The Harborside Fountain Park and Fountain Room events center; • The redevelopment of the former J.C. Penney building that will bring in a new grocery store, bookstore, health and fitness club, other retail, public gathering places, underground parking, and apartments; • New waterfront condominiums such as the Harborside and The 400; • Expansion of the Port of Bremerton Marina; and • Construction of an underground tunnel that will redirect ferry traffic, reduce vehicle congestion, and improve pedestrian access and safety in the downtown area. By connecting two popular recreation areas —the Harborside area in the city center and Evergreen Park to the north —the Boardwalk will significantly enhance the recreational opportunities afforded by these two complementary areas. It will give Bremerton residents an attractive and safe place to recreate. With intermediate connections along its length, the Boardwalk will also connect neighborhoods with business districts, so errands or visits with friends and neighbors can be accomplished without automobiles. This may reduce congestion and pollution. "People said, 'Build this trail and no one will come'...Now commuters use it every day and families come on weekends to blade and bike and walk. " — Mayor Tom Murphy in testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, regarding the Eliza Furnace Trail in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Given the strong demand for the amenities it offers, easy access to shopping and recreational activities in downtown Bremerton, and close proximity to regional transportation assets and population centers such as Seattle and Tacoma, the Boardwalk may become a recreation destination that will attract both local and non -local visitors. As such, the Boardwalk will help to keep local spending local, and attract new spending by non -local visitors. This will enhance the sales opportunities of downtown businesses and benefit local employees, business owners, and households. In addition, the Boardwalk may help mitigate future costs associated with sewer maintenance and repair, and shoreline erosion. This benefits city finances and/or local taxpayers. "In the last 12 months, we've had more tourists than in the last 30 years. Before, there wasn't anything to bring them here. " — Mayor Curtis Lewis, discussing the Silver Comet Trail in Rockmart, Georgia, Atlanta Journal - Constitution, May 6, 2002. Trails, greenways, and open spaces are viewed as a way to connect suburbs to cities, attract visitors to downtown, and enhance the overall beauty of the central city. The Boardwalk project involves the clean up of almost two- thirds mile of shoreline, Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 2 protection of shoreline that is subject to erosion, and the expansion of Evergreen Park through the redevelopment of abandoned industrial properties in Smith Cove. Essentially a "greenway over water ", the Bremerton Boardwalk will improve the quality of life and enable Bremerton to compete with other cities for residents and businesses. "Many of the green places and open spaces that need protecting most today are in our own neighborhoods. In too many places, the beauty of local vistas has been degraded by decades of ill planned and ill- coordinated development. " — Vice President Albert Gore, January 12, 1999. The Boardwalk will help to make Bremerton a more healthy community. At the national, regional, and local levels, there exists significant and growing demand for the outdoor recreation services that the Boardwalk will provide. Nationally, walking (180.6 million), bicycling (84.8 million), and hiking (73.8 million) are the top outdoor recreation activities.' Like trails and green spaces elsewhere, the Boardwalk will make it easier for people to exercise. According to researchers at North Carolina State University regarding a new trail system, 72 percent of those surveyed said that the trail would provide them a place to exercise and 57 percent said they would likely exercise more. The Boardwalk Community In addition to improving the local quality of life, the Boardwalk is expected to increase tourism— itself an economic driver —and bolster the local economy. The Puget Sound Regional Council ( "PSRC ") lists tourism as one of 15 industry clusters that can facilitate economic development in the central Puget Sound region. With miles of scenic shoreline, and close proximity to other recreational amenities and downtown businesses, the proposed Boardwalk would appear to be uniquely positioned to leverage those assets to increase tourism and bring new spending to Bremerton. By most measures of economic vitality, the immediate area surrounding the Boardwalk has historically lagged both Kitsap County and the state. Table 3 shows selected economic characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 Census. The USDA Forest Service, National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2000. Z Mark Ivy and Roger Moore, 2000 Cary Greenway Neighbor Study: Assessing Landowner Attitudes Towards Proposed Greenway Trail Development, North Carolina State University, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources, April 2, 2001. s The immediate impact area is based on the Bremerton zip code 98337. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 3 Table 3: U.S. Census 2000 - Selected Characteristics Kitsap Washington Bremerton Bremerton Selected Characteristic Bremerton County State % of County % of State Median family income $31,204 $53,878 $53,760 57.9% 58.0% Per capita income $15,793 $22,317 $22,973 70.8% 68.7% Families with income below poverty level 21.2% 6.3% 7.3% 336.5% 290.4% Individuals with income below poverty level 26.8% 8.8% 10.6% 304.5% 252.8% Individuals with income that is 50% below poverty level 11.9% 3.6% 4.6% 330.6% 258.7% Percent of individuals over 25 years old with a bachelor's degree or higher 14.7% 25.3% 27.7% 58.1% 53.1% Median home value $86,400 $152,100 $168,300 56.8% 51.3% Source: United States Census Bureau, 2000 Census Note: The 2000 Census measures the income of citizens in 1999. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, in 1999, the median family income in the downtown Bremerton area was $31,204. This was approximately 58 percent of the median family income in both Kitsap County and Washington. In addition, the percentage of families with income below the (national) poverty level in downtown Bremerton was roughly three times greater than in Kitsap County. Ultimately, the economic distress in downtown Bremerton shows up in property values, where median home values in the immediate impact area were roughly half the median home value in Kitsap County and Washington in 1999. Bremerton has also struggled to create jobs. In fact, data from the Puget Sound Regional Council's "2004 Milestones" report shows that Bremerton led the region in job losses ( -1,611 jobs) between 1995 and 2001. These jobs losses occurred at a time when the Washington economy was growing and the U.S. economy was in its longest economic expansion in history. As communities struggle economically, residents tend to leave. While the rest of Kitsap County and the state have experienced population increases over the last six years, Bremerton's population has declined. As shown in Table 4, between 2001 and 2006, Bremerton experienced a 3.6 percent decrease in population ( -1,350 residents), while other regions of Kitsap County and Washington experienced 5.8 and 6.8 percent increases, respectively. Perhaps more importantly, according to a national study conducted by the U.S. Economic Development Administration, economically distressed areas typically suffer from a form of "adverse selection" where those most likely to leave are young or middle - aged, higher educated, and higher income households. (See the percentage of residents over the age of 25 with bachelor degrees or higher, in Table 3. Bremerton is almost half 4 Out- migration, Population Decline, and Regional Economic Distress, United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, January 1999. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 4 the state average.) It is this characteristic of economically induced out - migration that leads to the loss of human capital and makes future economic development difficult. Fundamentally, that has been the economic problem of Bremerton. Other parts of Kitsap County have seen vibrant growth in the number of high- income families with wage earners who then commute to Seattle (where the costs of family housing have become prohibitively expensive). Bremerton, however, has been left behind. By enhancing the attractiveness of its downtown, which has all the elements of an appealing waterfront setting, the City has an opportunity to reverse that flow. If it succeeds, and the Boardwalk becomes a catalyst in achieving this goal, endogenous job growth in serving such families (e.g., education, healthcare, professional services, etc.) would accelerate and result in higher wage growth similar to what has been seen elsewhere in Kitsap County. Table 4: Population Statistics Elsewhere in Elsewhere in Bremerton Population Bremerton Kitsap County Washington 39,000 Population 2001 37,260 196,140 5,741,500 38,000 2002 37,530 197,170 5,807,000 2003 38,730 198,270 5,861,300 37,000 2004 37,520 201,980 5,928,300 2005 34,580 205,820 6,016,000 2006 35,910 207,490 6,132,200 36,000 Changes 2001 -2006 -1,350 11,350 390,700 35.000 2005 -2006 1,330 1,670 116,200 % Changes 2001 -2006 -3.6% 5.8% 6.8% 34,000 2005 -2006 38% 0.8% 1.9% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management The accompanying chart to the right of Table 4 shows that Bremerton's recent trend in declining population reversed itself between 2005 and 2006, and the redevelopment of the downtown area may be a factor contributing to the population increase. However, the most recent income statistics show that the immediate Bremerton area surrounding the proposed Boardwalk still lags significantly behind the rest of Kitsap County and the state. As seen in Figure 4, below, the distribution of household incomes in Bremerton near the proposed Boardwalk is dramatically skewed to lower income groups. In 2006, over 31 percent of the households in downtown Bremerton had an annual income of less than $20,000— compared to 13 percent elsewhere in Kitsap County and 16 percent elsewhere in Washington. Moreover, three - quarters (75 percent) of households in the immediate impact area had an annual income less than $50,000. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 5 Figure 4: Comparison of Average Annual Incomes in 2006 40% - - 30% v 0 = 20% 0 c m m 0% Lessthan $20 -$35k $35 -$50k $50 -$100k $100 -$200k Over$200k $20k ■ Bremerton © Elsewhere in Kitsap County D Elsewhere in Washington Source: Clantas By improving the quality of life, stimulating local economic activity, and bringing new private investment to the downtown area, the Boardwalk may help to remedy the economic and social disparities between families in Bremerton, and the rest of Kitsap County and the state. The national study by the Economic Development Office suggests, "Areas negatively affected by long -term population decline and out - migration may possess locationl advantages that are unexploited. Examples are attractiveness for tourism a favorable industry mix on which to base additional development, or reversible bottlenecks in transportation systems or other infrastructure. " 5 The Demand for Boardwalk Amenities Surveys conducted by the City of Bremerton show near - universal support for the Boardwalk project and strong demand for the various types of services the Boardwalk will provide. These results are also evident in national recreation surveys, local visitor surveys, and visitor statistics at riverwalks and river parks elsewhere in Washington. Community Support Informal surveys conducted by the City of Bremerton show strong support for the Boardwalk and the amenities it would provide. Survey results are shown in Table 5. Comments by respondents are included in Appendix A of this report. 5 Out - migration, Population Decline, and Regional Economic Distress, United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, January 1999. 6 The City of Bremerton conducted non -random surveys of local and non -local residents in August and September of this year. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 6 Table 5: City of Bremerton Informal Survey Results Affirmative Survey Question Responses_ How would you use the Boardwalk and park connection? Visiting downtown Harborside District public plaza, fountains, and retail businesses 66% Attending fairs, arts and cultural events on boardwalk, park areas, at OC, and neighborhoods 59% Destination for yourself or out-of -town guests to enjoy shopping, dining, and entertainment 53% Bird, whale, and wildlife viewing 44% Viewing boats/other maritime activity 41% Access to shoreline and a safe plan for those using wheelchairs, walkers, or with special needs 39% Learning about the environment and our mantime, military, and Native American history 34% What fitness and/or health activities would you do on the Boardwalk and park connection? Walking 65% Bicycling 30% Jogging 22% Medical /Rehabilitation 6% Where would you be commuting to /from? Washington ferry Seattle 30% Harborside district (downtown) 22% Port Orchard ferry 15% Transit center 12% Olympic College 9% Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 7% What is the age range of users of the Boardwalk and park connection? Children under 12 30% Teenagers 19% Adults 51% Adults, Non - seniors` 24% Adults, Seniors' 27% Where do you reside? Resident of Bremerton 44% Elsewhere 56% 'Adjustments made for possible double counting Source: City of Bremerton Respondents reported that they are very much in favor of the Boardwalk, and would use it for a variety of recreational and fitness activities. The top recreational activities are visiting downtown public areas and local retailers (66 percent); attending fairs and other special events (59 percent); and shopping, dining, and entertainment (53 percent). Views of wildlife and maritime activities, and access to the shoreline also ranked very high among respondents. In terms of fitness, walking (65 percent), bicycling (30 percent), and jogging (22 percent) were activities that respondents indicated they would undertake while visiting the Boardwalk. Importantly, the survey results indicate that the Boardwalk would accommodate local and non -local visitors across all age groups. National Demand for Outdoor Recreation The success —in terms of attracting visitors --of the Boardwalk ultimately depends on the demand for the services it offers. Data from the most recent National Survey on Recreation and the Environment ( " NSRE 2000 ") show that the demand for the Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 7 various amenities the Boardwalk would offer is quite strong. In aggregate, approximately 202 million persons were involved in some sort of outdoor recreation in 2000. Walking is the most popular form of outdoor recreation, with approximately 180.6 million participants (87.1 percent of people over the age of 16.) Although walking is popular among all age groups, it is especially popular for older Americans. National participation statistics for the different types of activities that the Boardwalk is expected to provide are shown in Table 6. Table 6: National Outdoor Recreation Statistics, 2000 (unweighted data) Percent of Major Type of Activity/ Population 16 Number Specific Activity and Older (in millions) Trailistreet/road activities Walking 87.1% 180.6 Biking 40.9% 84.8 Hiking 35.6% 73.8 Viewing and learning activities Visiting a nature center, trail or zoo 62.8% 130.2 Visiting a historic site 53.2% 110.3 Viewing and photographing activities Bird watching 41.0% 84.9 Viewing other wildlife 54.6% 113.2 Viewing natural scenery 69.8% 144.7 Sightseeing activities Sightseeing 60.2% 124.8 Traditional social activities Family gathering 76.1% 157.8 Picnicking 59.9% 124.2 Other water- related activities Visit a beach 42.0% 87.1 Visit a waterside 30.6% 63.4 Source: 1999 -2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, USDA Forest Service and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee Demand by Non -Local Visitors The demand for outdoor recreation evident in NSRE 2000 is also captured in survey results of non -local visitors to Kitsap County. The top 10 activities of visitors to Kitsap County are shown in Table 7. According to visitor statistics gathered for the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ( "CTED' ) 8 , shopping was the number 7 The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment ( "NSRE 2000 ") is conducted by the Interagency National Survey Consortium, and coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, Georgia and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. NSRE 2000 is a phone survey of 50,000 households in the United States. Questions are related to outdoor recreation participation, demographics, household structure, lifestyles, environmental attitudes, and natural resources. 8 Olympic & Kitsap Peninsula visitor Profile 2002, prepared for the Tourism Office of the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, by Jim Lillstrom & Associates, April 2003. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 8 one activity of visitors to Kitsap County. Eight of the other top nine activities were outdoor - related. Table 7: Top Ten Activities of Visitors to Kitsap County Percent of All Activity Visitors Shopping 54% Sightseeing/driving tour 44% Family event 35% Wine tasting 27% Visit historic/cultural site 22% Hiking 20% Festival /event 18% Golf 15% Biking 14% Boating /watersports 13% Source: Olympic 8 Kitsap Peninsula Visitor Profile 2002, April 2003. The market demand for outdoor - related recreational activities is strong at both the national and regional level. The market demand by non -local visitors for retail shopping, and eating and drinking services while visiting Kitsap County is also quite strong. With the amenities the Boardwalk will provide and close proximity to the business district in downtown Bremerton, the Boardwalk would be uniquely situated to accommodate both types of demand. Demand at Similar Facilities Elsewhere in Washington The Bremerton Boardwalk will be a unique Northwest attraction; examples of similar boardwalks in the Pacific Northwest are rare, and visitor data for comparable facilities is seldom gathered. ECONorthwest was able to obtain visitor data for two river walks in Central Washington, and these visitation statistics suggest that the demand for the recreational amenities offered at these facilities is strong and growing. In Wenatchee, Washington —a city with a population of approximately 29,000 — the Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail was completed in 1994. Spanning both the east and west sides of the Columbia River, the park sits on 31 acres and offers visitors river views, beach access, a two -lane boat launch, and restrooms. Visitor statistics compiled by the Chelan County Public Utility District ( "Chelan County PUD ") show that park visitation has increased dramatically since opening, and reached approximately 3.8 million people in 2006. According to the Chelan County PUD, "...the Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail has been a resounding success. The trail has become a major transportation corridor that serves thousands of commuter and recreational trail users each year...The parks and trails have added much to our quality of livings The Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail is a trail system that connects four public parks. The most popular attraction of the trail system is the Wenatchee Riverfront Park —with 1.1 miles of shoreline trail, numerous access points to neighborhoods, businesses, and special amenities such as an ice - skating rink, a special event mini - 9 Chelan County PUD memorandum. See http: / /www.chelanpud.org/apple- capital - loop - trail.html Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 9 ' / 1" / • • "1 • � 111 1 ':• • ' • 11• -• f,n Kr � RV 2 1 0 � � ► �'� {ti :1� . l,;�y •�. � � i r � / ��'! �.�..•� ! 1A _'� . "i 1 � � • q i. a ti � I �,1�� .fit �lw"' ij � , a,.! . y q ..► S� �'i ,. x :.1 1 + +�'k" til '-- }� 0 r % �� �!•�+ �+ �j�.•- lou c t t t ,If ' e; . g �' l • OW 500 000 # t ♦ srr! { 1 _ ' ft ttarr� �u7 PEI 1986 19 1 19� 2 0_02 -� 200 90 '~+► too 111 • 1 • / 1 •. 11• • Figure 6: Visitor Statistics for Chelan Riverwalk Park 1 r� 1 Source: Visitor statistics from Chelan PUD. Photograph provided by North Central Washington Portal (www.ncwportal.com) Although detailed visitor statistics are not available for comparable Boardwalks elsewhere in Washington, the riverwalk in Chelan and river trail in Wenatchee both provide visitation numbers that suggest the demand for the outdoor recreation services provided by the Bremerton Boardwalk is strong and growing. Economic Impact Methodology The most widely used modeling framework for economic impact analysis is known as input - output modeling. Input - output models provide an empirical representation of an economy and the relationships among the various industrial sectors, final consumers, and the larger (regional or national) economy. Input - output models generally are not available for state and regional economies. As a result, special data techniques have been developed to estimate the necessary empirical relationships from a combination of national technological relationships and county- or local -level measures of economic activity. This non -survey approach means that input - output models can be economically constructed using commercially available modeling software that relies on secondary source data collected by government agencies. The most commonly used impact analysis software is called IMPLAN (for IMpact Analysis for PLANning). This is the modeling software that ECONorthwest 10 IMPLAN was initially developed by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior to assist federal agencies in their land and resource management planning. Since 1993, IMPLAN has been developed and distributed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 11 used in this analysis. In simple terms, the IMPLAN model works by tracing how spending generated by the Boardwalk circulates through the immediate impact area and the larger Kitsap County economy. Classifying Economic Impacts Depending on the project or program, economic impacts can be classified by phase, types, and measures. Impacts by Phase ECONorthwest measured economic impacts for two distinct phases. The construction impacts summarize the changes in output, earnings, and employment associated with construction of the Boardwalk. This economic activity will, in turn, generate additional tax revenues for state and local governments. Construction impacts are temporary in nature and occur as construction spending occurs. Operating impacts summarize the changes in output, earnings, and employment resulting from Boardwalk operations. Impacts from Boardwalk operations will also generate fiscal impacts for state and local governments. The operation of the Boardwalk will not require significant new expenditures or employment by the City of Bremerton. Instead, the operating impacts, in the short run, will come from new local spending by non -local visitors. In the longer run, the Boardwalk may facilitate additional private investment in Bremerton in the form of new industry and/or households. As opposed to construction impacts, operating impacts will continue as long as the Boardwalk exists. Types of Impacts Spending attributed to the Boardwalk will generate direct impacts for local businesses and workers. They include the full- and part-time jobs and income earned by the workers building the facility (during construction) and the workers providing goods and services to visitors of the facility (during operations). The Boardwalk will generate secondary impacts. These include indirect impacts for businesses and workers in industries that supply the construction project or cater to Boardwalk visitors. Secondary impacts also include induced impacts that are generated as the direct and indirect increases in employment and income enhance purchasing power and fuel additional consumption spending. These secondary impacts will be discussed in greater detail when impact results are presented in the next section. Measures of Impacts The economic impacts of the Boardwalk can be measured in several ways. This report uses the following measures: • Output measures the value of goods and services produced, and is the broadest measure of economic activity. ECONorthwest has applied the model to a variety of public and private sector projects including, most recently, an impact evaluation of Oregon's system of higher education and the potential loss of federal matching funds for long -term care services for seniors and persons with disabilities in Oregon and Washington. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 12 • Wages are the sum of workers' wages and salaries, and include benefits such as health and life insurance, retirement payments, and non -cash compensation. • Business income (also called proprietary income) represents the payments received by small- business owners or self - employed workers. Business income would include, for example, income received by private business owners, doctors, accountants, and lawyers. • Other income represents payments in the form of interest, rents, royalties, dividends, and profits. • Employment represents the number of full- and part-time jobs. • Taxes represent the revenues received by state and local taxing jurisdictions. Economic impacts are presented for the downtown Bremerton near the Boardwalk and Kitsap County. (The immediate Bremerton impact area is based on zip code 98337.) The impacts are stated in 2007 dollars. In addition, it is our understanding that the City of Bremerton will be using some of the study findings to apply for an economic development grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council. The grant application process requires, among other things, estimates of economic impacts in year two and year 8 following completion of the project. As such, ECONorthwest has tailored our findings to provide the City with the information required by the PSRC grant application. Key Issues Affecting this Analysis Estimated impacts can vary widely with different assumptions, and users of such estimates must take care to fully understand the logic and assumptions those estimates are based on. This section identifies assumptions that affect the analysis of the economic impacts of the Boardwalk. The Base Case, Alternative Case, and Net Impacts The future in which no new action occurs is known as `the base case.' In this analysis, the `base case' assumes that Bremerton does not construct the Boardwalk. The alternative now under consideration, of course, is that Bremerton goes ahead with construction of the Boardwalk. This is called the `alternative case.' The differences in impacts between the base case and the alternative case are the net impacts of the Boardwalk. It is important to note that no action is not the same as no change. The no- action base case represents the world without the project. Changes will occur even without the project because of other planned or likely projects, population growth, economic shifts, increased travel, and many other factors not directly attributable to or even related to the proposed project. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 13 Attribution of Causality Establishing a base case affects an analyst's ability to properly identify cause -and- effect relationships. Attributing effects to causes, and doing so only once (i.e., avoiding double counts), is essential to evaluating impacts. Properly identifying the cause - and - effect relationship for the Boardwalk and the visitors and/or private development it will attract is not simple. The Bremerton economy is complex and is undergoing significant changes. The decision making process of visitors is also complex, and may depend on the full range of amenities that Bremerton and Kitsap County have to offer rather than just a single attraction (such as the Boardwalk). Understanding what role the Bremerton Boardwalk plays in attracting tourists could be accomplished through surveys or by case studies of comparable facilities. The City of Bremerton recently conducted an informal survey of visitors at the Kitsap County Fair and the Blackberry Festival, and the results showed a significant number of respondents indicated that Bremerton Boardwalk would be an attraction that they would likely visit again, often. The survey, however, was not a formal scientific survey. It focused on potential uses of and activities on the Boardwalk, rather than the affect of the proposed Boardwalk on visitors' decision - making processes. In that sense, the survey is quite useful in better understanding the demand for the various types of amenities the Boardwalk will offer. Since the survey was conducted among those that were already visiting Bremerton, it does not provide insight into how many new tourists might visit Bremerton because of the Boardwalk. In that regard, this survey is insufficient to allow this analysis to estimate the change in tourism that the Boardwalk will generate. Alternatively, one could take a case study approach and use visitation statistics at other boardwalks as the basis for estimating the likely change in tourism associated with the Bremerton Boardwalk. Unfortunately, visitation statistics for comparable facilities in comparable settings —i.e., similar geography, economy, and demography —do not exist. Despite these data constraints, this analysis does not guess how many visitors the Boardwalk will attract. Instead, it uses publicly available data to develop a matrix of possible outcomes, and then looks at two plausible impact scenarios in detail. It's important to emphasize that where assumptions must be made, this study relies on the most conservative and defensible assumptions. As a result, the impacts reported in this analysis likely have a conservative bias. Economic Impact Results Construction Impacts The City of Bremerton and its consultant, Parametrix, provided detailed project cost information, including, major expense categories and funding sources. In total, the Boardwalk Project represents a $24.5 million investment in the City of Bremerton.' � The City anticipates a three -year project time frame —with project design and property 11 Construction costs are in 2010 dollars. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 14 acquisitions in 2007, environmental remediation in 2008, and sewer improvements and Boardwalk construction in 2009. Table 8 summarizes the output, income, and employment impacts on Bremerton and Kitsap County associated with the construction of the Boardwalk. Ta 8: Economic Impacts From Construction (2007 dollars) Study Area / Type of Impact Direct Secondary Total Bremerton Output $3,082,000 $821,000 $3,903,000 Wages $1,648,000 $286,000 $1,934,000 Business Income $231,000 $50,000 $281,000 Other Income $227,000 $138,000 $365,000 Jobs 35 4 40 Rest of Kitsap County Output $17,249,000 $6,059,000 $23,308,000 Wages $6,268,000 $1,971,000 $8,239,000 Business Income $1,779,000 $243,000 $2,022,000 Other Income $1,383,000 $1,265,000 $2,648,000 Jobs 165 73 238 Total Kitsap County Output $20,331,000 $6,880,000 $27,211,000 Wages $7,916,000 $2,257,000 $10,173,000 Business Income $2,010,000 $293,000 $2,303,000 Other Income $1,610,000 $1,403,000 $3,013,000 Jobs 200 77 278 Source: The City of Bremerton's construction cost estimates and ECONorthwest using IMPLAN software. As shown in Table 8, Boardwalk project spending is directly associated with approximately $7.9 million in wages, $2.0 million in business income, and 200 jobs for construction workers and contractors in Kitsap County. According to the economic impact models, most of the direct economic activity is expected to spill out of the immediate impact area in downtown Bremerton and be captured elsewhere in Kitsap County. Indeed, approximately 83 percent of the direct jobs and 79 percent of the direct wages accrue to construction workers originating from other parts of Kitsap County. The direct spending associated with the Boardwalk project starts a chain reaction that yields a "multiplier effect" that is larger than the original stimulus (see the column labeled "Secondary" impacts in Table 8). This multiplier effect includes indirect impacts as firms buy goods and services from other firms. A contractor working on the construction of the Boardwalk, for example, may lease equipment or purchase cement, rebar, or welding supplies —some of these intermediate goods and services will be provided by local firms. The multiplier effect also includes induced impacts as the direct and indirect increases in employment and income enhance the purchasing power of households. For instance, the construction worker who uses their income to buy groceries or take their family to the theater generates economic impacts for workers and businesses in those sectors. These individuals will, in turn, spend their incomes. This cycle continues until the spending eventually leaks out of the economy as a result of taxes, savings, or purchases of non - locally produced goods or services or "imports." In total, the $24.5 million Boardwalk Project will generate approximately $27.2 million in economic activity, $10.2 million in wages, $2.3 million in business income, and nearly 280 full- and part-time jobs in Kitsap County over the course of the project. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 15 Similar to the direct impacts, most of the total economic impacts are expected to spill out of the immediate impact area in downtown Bremerton and be captured elsewhere in Kitsap County. The economic activity associated with the construction of the Boardwalk will also generate tax revenues for state and local tax jurisdictions. These fiscal impacts are reported in Table 9, below. According to the economic impact models, the construction of the Boardwalk will generate approximately $773,000 in tax revenues for state and local governments. The largest revenue component is sales taxes, with $382,800 in revenues or approximately 50 percent of the total fiscal impacts. Table 9: Fiscal Impacts from Construction (2007 dollars) Category / Type of Tax Amount Business Sales taxes $382,800 Property taxes $169,000 Motor vehicle taxes and fees $3,900 Other taxes $43,800 Non -taxes (fees, fines) $18,500 Subtotal $618,000 Households Property taxes $6,200 Motor vehicle taxes and fees $15,100 Other taxes $5,700 Non -taxes (fees, fines) $61,800 Subtotal $88,800 Other Social insurance taxes $10,800 Dividend taxes $55,700 Subtotal $66,500 Total $773,300 Source: The City of Bremerton's construction cost estimates and ECONorthwest using IMPLAN software. It's important to mention two points regarding the construction impacts: • Construction impacts are temporary in nature and unfold as construction spending occurs. Moreover, some of these jobs may not be new to the area in that they may employ those already working in the local construction industry. The building of the Boardwalk, however, would increase the intensity of their employment. • Construction impacts do not include funds from the City of Bremerton's General Fund. That is, in order to provide the most realistic estimate of new economic activity to the region, this source of funding is excluded because it may necessitate reduced government spending on other programs and/or higher taxes and fees. Operating Impacts The Boardwalk will not require a significant increase in City expenditures or staff time. Thus, the economic impacts attributed to operating the Boardwalk, if any, must come from other source(s). Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 16 In the short run, the City of Bremerton's proposed Boardwalk is viewed as an economic asset that will increase tourism. Spending by non -local visitors to Bremerton means additional sales for local businesses, and jobs and income for the local labor force. This initial spending will, in turn, have a multiplier effect and generate income and jobs in other sectors of the local Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. In the longer run, it is the goal of the City to leverage the Boardwalk to enhance the economic vitality and livability of downtown Bremerton. A well - maintained Boardwalk would stimulate customer traffic at downtown businesses, retain or bring additional private investment downtown, and attract new households to Bremerton. Much like tourism impacts, the expansion of local businesses and households will generate more spending, and this spending will have a multiplier effect for other sectors of the local Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. Effectively, a well -run and attractive Boardwalk would help fuel a revitalization of the downtown area and further the early stages of transformation the community is only now beginning to see. Tourism - Related Economic Impacts As discussed previously, the Puget Sound Regional Council lists tourism as one of 15 industry clusters that can facilitate economic development in the central Puget Sound region. The U.S. Economic Development Office suggests that communities may possess locational advantages allowing them to use tourism to improve economic conditions, remedy social disparities, and reverse long -run population declines or out - migration. Because it is important to establish and fully understand the base case, the following section looks at tourism in Kitsap County. Kitsap County Tourism Historically, Kitsap County and Bremerton have not been able to capture the tourism- related impacts that are benefiting most of the rest of Washington. According to travel statistics compiled for CTED, in 2005, Kitsap County was last among all 39 Washington counties in terms of the percentage of total county earnings that were travel generated (1.1 percent). This was roughly half of the state average of 2.2 percent.' 3 Likewise, Kitsap County had the fifth lowest travel- generated employment (2.5 percent of total employment) among all Washington counties. 14 This was approximately 35 percent lower than the state average of 3.9 percent, and is significantly lower than other counties in the region who rely on their scenic settings to capture travelers seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. (Selected coastal counties and their travel - generated employment are shown in Table 10.) 12 Industry clusters are inter - related industries that have a shared reliance on similar economic assets and, because they are export - oriented industries, bring new wealth into a region. As such, industry clusters are almost universally recognized as regional economic drivers. 13 Dean Runyan Associates, Washington State Statewide Travel Impacts & Visitor Volume, 1991 - 2006P, " p. 33. 14 Ibid. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 17 Table 10: Travel- Generated Employment in 2005 (Selected Counties) Travel - Generated County Employment Employment Percent Pacific 9,840 2,080 21.1% Grays Harbor 33,600 4,260 12.7 %_ Jefferson 14,870 1,660 11.1% Clallam 35,940 3,170 8.8% Mason 20,290 1,300 6.4% Island 35,720 2,420 6.8% San Juan 10,380 1,840 17.7% KOV 125,130 3,180 2.5% Washington State Statewide Travel Impacts & Visitor Volume, 1991- 2006P,° page 33, prepared by Dean Runyan Associates for the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Tourism Office, December 2006 Estimating Tourism - related Impacts (A Matrix of Alternative Outcomes) The City of Bremerton, business leader, and others in the community believe that the Boardwalk will accomplish a wide range of objectives, including becoming a recreation destination that will attract tourists. However, the ability of the Boardwalk to attract tourists depends on more than just the amenities it offers. It also depends on how the Boardwalk is packaged with other local amenities –both recreational and business— and how it is marketed. This study does not offer recommendations. In order to estimate the tourism - related economic impacts of the Boardwalk, the central question is: "How many visitors will the Bremerton Boardwalk attract? " To answer this question, ECONorthwest compiled detailed visitor statistics from various public sources to establish a visitor base case scenario, i.e., Bremerton without the Boardwalk. We then used the same public information and posited changes in visitation to develop alternative scenarios for Bremerton with the Boardwalk. The differences between the two represents the tourism- related impacts associated with the Boardwalk. These outcomes have been arrayed in matrix formats. [Note: A visitor day is equal to one visitor staying for one day. For example, a family of four that stays for two days is the equivalent of 8 visitor days.] Estimating tourism- related economic impacts is a four step process involving: 1) establishing a visitor base case, 2) developing a visitor alternative case, 3) measuring the spending associated with the net increase in visitors, and 4) running the estimated tourism - related spending through specially - constructed input - output models of the Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. These four steps and their data sources are discussed in detail below. Establish the Visitor Base Case Detailed annual travel impacts and visitor volume data for Washington from 1991 -2005 are compiled by Dean Runyan Associates for the State of Washington's Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ( "Statewide Travel Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 18 Study "). The Statewide Travel Study has detailed statistics on the number of travelers, and traveler expenditures by type of traveler and commodity. Because visitor data is not available at the sub -county level, Kitsap County visitor expenditure data was scaled down to the Bremerton area using the city-to -county ratio of retail and service sector employment. With the opening of the Boardwalk expected in 2010, these 2005 visitor statistics were adjusted upward using the average annual growth rate in visitor expenditures in Kitsap County between 1991 and 2005. Day visitors, according to the Statewide Travel Study, are only included if their point of origin is at least 50 miles away from their destination. This would effectively exclude almost four million potential day visitors within a 50 -mile radius of the Boardwalk. To augment data from the Statewide Travel Study, ECONorthwest used detailed statistics from the Washington State Ferry System and the U.S. Census Bureau. According to Washington State Ferry data, in 2006, approximately 2.4 million riders used the Seattle - Bremerton ferry route. Roughly one -half of this total, or 1.2 million riders, were westbound. 18 ECONorthwest estimates that approximately 194,000 ferry passengers (or 8.2 percent of total ridership) were westbound travelers coming to Bremerton for recreation and/or personal, business, and other reasons, and whose trip origin was within 50 miles of Bremerton. These 2006 ridership statistics were adjusted to 2010, when the Boardwalk is expected to open, based on the growth in ridership for this route between 2005 and 2006. The U.S. Census publishes county-level commuter statistics that are cross - tabulated by origin and destination. This data shows commuter travel into Kitsap County, and where that travel originated. In 2000, the U.S. Census shows 10,260 commuters traveled into Kitsap County for work. These commuter statistics were adjusted to 2010, using the growth in commuter traffic between 2005 and 2006. The U.S. Census' commuter data enables us to estimate the number of visitors who would not be captured in the Statewide Travel Study or ferry statistics. By working in a given area, people become familiar with recreational, shopping, and dining opportunities in that area. This knowledge may lead to return visits. ECONorthwest estimated the number of commuters coming into Bremerton from adjacent counties (within the 50 mile radius, but not by ferry) and assumed that a fraction of workers return with their families to recreate, shop, or dine. ECONorthwest estimates that annual 15 ES202 data provided by the Washington Employment Security Department. 16 2006 Origin Destination Onboard Survey, prepared for the Washington State Ferries and Washington State Department of Transportation by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., NuStats Incorporated, and RST International, June 2007, pp. 7 -54 to 7 -86. 17 U.S. Census Bureau, County -to- County Worker Flow Files, released March 6, 2003. These files were compiled from Census 2000 responses to the long -form questions on where people worked. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html#WA 18 Interestingly, Washington State Ferries reports east and west bound travel is approximately the same across all purposes. However, recreational trips have a much different directional flow, which is "attributed to the fact that Seattle and surrounding areas have tourist attractions that are more likely to attract shopping and recreation trips in the eastbound direction during weekdays in the p.m. period." See 2006 Origin Destination Onboard Survey, p. 7 -54. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 19 commuter -based visitation to Bremerton in 2000 is approximately 6,440 persons. These were adjusted to 2010 using the growth in commuter traffic between 2005 and 2006. Establish the Visitor Altemative Case The alternative case is based on the number of new visitors that are attracted to Bremerton because of the Boardwalk. If the Bremerton Boardwalk is successful, it will cause a bump or increase in visitation once it opens in 2010, and then will contribute to visitor growth in future years. Because the Bremerton Boardwalk is so unique, relevant visitation statistics or case studies are either not available or applicable. Therefore, ECONorthwest developed a matrix of possible changes in tourism that includes different assumptions about the initial bump in tourism following Boardwalk opening in 2010 (these assumptions are in the rows) and the incremental growth in tourism that the Boardwalk may generate in years to follow (these assumptions are shown in the columns). [The City of Bremerton is applying for an economic development grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council. One component of the grant application requires economic impacts for two different time periods. The matrix shown in Table 11 has, therefore, been divided into tourism impacts in year two and year eight following project completion.] Table 11: Matrix of Possible Changes in Tourism (Visitor Days) Change in the Average Annual Growth Rate of Visitor Days 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Increase in Visitor Days - Year 2 0% 0 2,430 4,860 9,730 14,600 19,460 24,330 5% 60,050 62,600 65,160 70,270 75,380 80,490 85,590 10% 120,100 122,780 125,460 130,810 136,160 141,510 146,860 �R 20% 240,210 243,120 246,050 251,880 257,720 263,560 269,400 a 30% 360,310 363,470 366,630 372,960 379,280 385,610 391,940 G 40% 480,420 483,810 487,220 494,030 500,850 507,660 514,470 `0 50% 600,510 604,160 607,820 615,110 622,410 629,710 637,010 A Increase in Visitor Days - Year 8 > 0% 0 21,960 44,190 89,450 135,820 183,330 231,980 C 5% 76,970 100,020 123,360 170,890 219,580 269,460 320,540 CL 10% 153,930 178,090 202,540 252,330 303,340 355,590 409,100 m 20% 307,860 334,200 360,880 415,200 470,840 527,850 586,230 30% 461,780 490,330 519,230 578,070 638,360 700,110 763,360 40% 615,710 646,450 677,570 740,950 805,860 872,370 940,480 50% 1 769,640 802,580 835,920 903,820 973,380 1,044,630 1,117,600 Source. ECONorthwest. Table 11 shows the various combinations of changes in visitor days. For example, if the Boardwalk causes an initial 10 percent bump in visitation and then causes the average annual visitor growth rate to increase by 5 percent in years going forward, then in year two, the Boardwalk would have generated approximately 122,780 visitor days. 19 The change in the average annual visitor growth rate represents the incremental growth caused by the Boardwalk. For example, if the average annual growth rate of tourism in Bremerton is estimated at 4.2 percent, then a 10 percent increase in the annual growth rate represents a 4.62 percent growth rate going forward (0.042 + (0.042 x 0.10) = 0.046). Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 20 Estimate Local Spending by Different Visitor Classes The data in Table 11 represent the total number of new or additional visitor days generated by the Boardwalk under a variety of assumptions. The Statewide Travel Study identifies visitors by different visitor classes. There are overnight visitors who stay in hotels /motels, campgrounds, private homes, and vacation homes. There are also day visitors. Each spending class has different expenditure patterns, and the Statewide Travel Study provides estimates of visitor spending by type of commodity purchased, including: accommodations; food and beverage services; food stores; ground transportation and motor fuels; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and retail sales. This data is provided for five geographic regions within Washington - Kitsap County is in the Coastal Region. Table 12 shows the change in visitor spending under varying assumptions regarding the initial increase in visitation following opening in 2010, and the annual growth rate going forward. Table 12: Matrix of Changes in Tourist - Related Spending Change in the Average Annual Growth Rate of Visitor Days 0% 5 0 /0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Increase in Annual Visitor Spending in millions - Year 2 0% $0.00 $0.25 $0.50 $1.00 $1.49 $1.99 $2.49 5% $6.14 $6.40 $6.67 $7.19 $7.71 $8.23 $8.76 10% $12.29 $12.56 $12.83 $13.38 $13.93 $1448 $1502 20% $24.57 $24.87 $25.17 $25.77 $26.37 $26.96 $27.56 30% $36.86 $37.18 $37.51 $38.15 $38.80 $3945 $40.10 p 40% $49.15 $49.49 $49.84 $50.54 $51.24 $51.93 $52.63 `0 50% $61.43 $61.81 $62.18 $62.93 $63.67 $64.42 $65.17 Increase in Annual Visitor Spending in millions - Year 8 > 0% $0.00 $2.25 $4.52 $9.15 $13.89 $1875 $23.73 S 5% $7.87 $10.23 $12.62 $17.48 $22.46 $27.57 $3279 E 10% $15.75 $18.22 $20.72 $25.81 $31.03 $36.38 $41.85 m 20% $31.49 $34.19 $3692 $42.48 $48.17 $54.00 $59.97 30% $47.24 $50.16 $53.12 $59.14 $65.31 $7162 $78.09 40% $62.99 $66.13 $69.32 $75.80 $82.44 $8924 $96.21 50% 1 $78.74 $8211 $85.52 $92.46 $99.58 $106.87 $114.33 Source: ECONorthwest. Continuing with the previous example, if the Boardwalk causes an initial 10 percent bump in visitation and the annual rate of visitation to increase by 5 percent in years going forward, then at the end of year two, the Boardwalk would have generated approximately 122,780 visitor days. Given the breakout between overnight and day visitors, and the different spending levels associated with these classes of visitors, then we could expect the Boardwalk to generate an additional $12.56 million in visitor spending in Bremerton in year two. Estimate Economic Impacts With visitor counts and detailed expenditure data for each visitor class, ECONorthwest used specially - constructed models of the Bremerton and Kitsap County Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 21 economies to estimate the economic impacts associated with the change in tourism spending. 20 Table 13: Matrix of Tourism- Generated Job Impacts Change In the Average Annual Growth Rate of Visitor Days 0% 5 0 /0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Job Impacts - Year 2 0% 0 3 6 13 19 25 31 0 5% 77 80 84 90 97 103 110 c 10% 154 158 161 168 175 182 189 20% 309 313 316 324 331 339 346 30% 463 467 471 479 488 496 504 p 40% 618 622 626 635 644 653 661 `0 50% 772 777 781 791 800 809 819 •' Job Impacts - Year 8 0% 0 28 57 115 175 236 298 = 5% 99 129 159 220 282 346 412 CL 10% 198 229 260 324 390 457 526 E 20% 396 430 464 534 605 679 754 m 30% 594 630 667 743 821 900 981 40% 791 831 871 952 1,036 1,121 1,209 50% 989 1,032 1,075 1,162 1,251 1,343 1,437 Source ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. Continuing with the previous example, the 10 percent bump and 5 percent increase in the average annual growth rate of visitors, leads to an increase of 122,780 visitor -days and $12.56 million increase in visitor spending. Table 13 shows that this spending will generate approximately 158 jobs in Bremerton. These jobs are created within the tourism cluster and include sectors, such as eating and drinking establishments; accommodations; retailers; and providers of art, entertainment, and recreation services. In addition, these job impacts include the multiplier effects from business and household spending that spread the initial visitor spending to social and health services, government, retailers, and others. These job impacts, however, are only for the immediate Bremerton area near the proposed Boardwalk. They do not include spillover spending and jobs created in other parts of Kitsap County. These spillover impacts are discussed in detail in the next section of the report. Estimating Tourism- related Impacts (Two Plausible Scenarios) The success of the Boardwalk depends on the demand for the amenities it offers; how those amenities complement (or substitute) other local amenities including shopping, dining, and recreation services; and how the Boardwalk is marketed by the City of Bremerton, local businesses, and other community groups. In the previous section, we developed matrices that look at a variety of outcomes depending on the initial increase in visitation and the growth in tourism going forward. This section looks at two plausible scenarios. The first scenario is a "fair share" scenario that has the Boardwalk generating an initial 10 percent bump in visitation and then an average visitor growth rate comparable to the state of Washington. 20 IMPLAN just released new 2006 data, which will capture the recent economic changes in Kitsap County and, more importantly, downtown Bremerton. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 22 A second, more optimistic scenario has Bremerton experiencing a 20 percent bump in visitation when the Boardwalk opens in 2010, and then an annual growth rate that puts Bremerton in the upper quintile growth rate for counties in Washington. These two scenarios are shown in Figure 7. The PSRC milestone years are shown as vertical gray lines at 2012 and 2018. Figure 7: Visitor Trends Under Two Scenarios PSRC 2.400.000 -- - - - - - - - Year 8 Milestone 2,200.000 • • • 2.000.000 - - - - - — • • PSRC • • Year2 • - - - - - -- 1 ' - -- - Milestone _ - • . • s • ♦ • • ♦ o Boardwalk • • . • 1.600.000 Opens • ♦ ♦ • • S w • • • s 1.400.000 1.200.000 1.000.000 Constnxhon 800.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Base Case - Fair Share Scenario - - Top Gullible Scenario Fair Share Scenario The first scenario uses a "fair share" approach that assumes the Boardwalk will generate an initial 10 percent increase in visitation 1 and enable Bremerton to have a visitor growth rate —as derived from visitor expenditures — comparable to the state as a whole. That is, between 1991 -2005, tourism related expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 4.54 percent in Washington and 4.22 percent in Kitsap County. The fair share approach assumes that the Boardwalk would enable Bremerton to experience, after the initial 2010 bump in tourism, an annual growth rate comparable to the state; i.e., Kitsap County's average annual growth rate would increase by approximately 7.58 percent to just match the historical growth rate in Washington. The annual economic impacts for two time periods —years two and eight — are shown in Table 14. 2i This 10 percent bump in visitation is based on the annual average growth rate in visitation at the Chelan Riverwalk Park and the Wenatchee Riverfront Park between 1986 and 2006. In both cases, park visitation has grown dramatically over the last four years. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 23 Table 14: Economic Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) Study Area/ Year 2 Year 8 Type of Impact Direct SecondarV Total Direct Secondary Total Bremerton Output $7,594,820 $2,138,940 $9,733,760 $11,645,580 $3,279,770 $14,925,350 Wages $2,640,890 $774,000 $3,414,890 $4,049,440 $1,186,820 $5,236,260 Business Income $367,960 $96,670 $464,630 $564,210 $148,220 $712,430 Other Income $841,810 $440,560 $1,282,370 $1,290,790 $675,540 $1,966,330 Jobs 138 21 159 212 33 245 Rest of Kitsap County Output $2.386,530 $3,254,520 $5,641,050 $3,659,410 $5,705,170 $9,364,580 Wages $516,650 $937,070 $1,453,720 $792,210 $1,319,310 $2,111,520 Business Income $468,900 $357,850 $826,750 $719,000 $980,350 $1,699,350 Other Income $237,670 $577,900 $815,570 $364,450 $657,400 $1,021,850 Jobs 49 38 87 75 99 174 Total Kitsap County Output $9,981,350 $5,393,460 $15,374,810 $15,304,990 $8,270,110 $23,575,100 Wages $3,157,540 $1,711,070 $4,868,610 $4,841,650 $2,623,680 $7,465,330 Business Income $836,860 $454.520 $1,291,380 $1,283,210 $696,940 $1,980,150 Other Income $1,079,480 $1,018,460 $2,097,940 $1,655,240 $1,561,650 $3,216,890 Jobs 187 59 246 287 91 378 Source. ECONorthwest using IMPLAN As can be seen in Table 14, the majority of the direct impacts benefit the Bremerton area immediately surrounding the Boardwalk. Under this fair share scenario, approximately $7.6 million in economic activity is generated in year two. This economic activity includes $2.6 million in wages, $368,000 in business income, and 138 jobs. In year 8, the direct impacts in the local Bremerton area will have grown to over $11.6 million in economic activity, $4.1 million in wages, and 212 jobs. Some of these direct impacts will spill over into other parts of Bremerton and Kitsap County. Non -local visitors who come to the Boardwalk may travel to other parts of Bremerton or Kitsap County and purchase goods and services. For example, some overnight visitors will stay in RV campgrounds. According to the impact models, RV campgrounds are not available in the immediate Bremerton impact area. Thus, expenditures on this type of overnight accommodation will spill over into other parts of Kitsap County and the direct economic impacts on the downtown Bremerton economy will be zero. Expenditures on arts, entertainment, and recreation also show a similarly high spillover effect. The spillover effect described previously also extends beyond the direct impacts of tourism spending. There will be indirect and induced spillover effects as Bremerton businesses and households purchase goods and services from other businesses located elsewhere in Kitsap County. For example, spillover impacts occur when a Bremerton restaurant purchases produce from a wholesaler in Poulsbo, or the downtown hotel employee takes their family out to dinner in the nearby community of Manette. In total, the fair share analysis shows that, in year two, non -local visitors attracted to Bremerton because of the Boardwalk will generate approximately $15.4 million in economic activity, including $4.9 million in wages, $1.3 million in business income, and almost 250 jobs for businesses and workers in Kitsap County. In year eight, the impacts will have grown to $23.6 million in output, $7.5 million in wages, and almost 380 jobs for workers and businesses in Kitsap County. 22 Our immediate impact area is defined quite narrowly as U.S. postal zip code 98337. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 24 Figure 8, below, shows how the job impacts grow under this fair share scenario. The income reported in year two and year eight represents the wages and business income going to workers and small business owners in each of those years. Figure 8: Changes in Employment (Fair Share Scenario) Year 8 Income a 400 $9,445,180 Year 2 300 _ _ _ _ hwame n $6,159,990 0 C 200 a ° c a LL 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 G Bremerton ❑ Elsewhere in lGtsap County Source ECONorthwest using IMPLAN Linkages between businesses can also be viewed from an economic perspective. Table 15 shows the direct job impacts for Bremerton in year two and year eight. The direct impacts represent jobs in the tourism cluster that PSRC, and others, believe can be an economic driver in the central Puget Sound area. Given the nature of tourism spending, these direct jobs are concentrated in accommodations and food services; retail and wholesale trade; and arts, entertainment, and recreation. The direct job impacts in Bremerton's developing tourism cluster are linked to jobs in other sectors of the Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. Some of these jobs are additional tourism jobs just outside of the immediate impact area. Other jobs are generated as a result of business and household spending that can be traced back to the initial spending stimulus, i.e., tourism expenditures. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 25 Table 15: Bremerton Job Impacts (Fair Share Scenario) Type of Impacts/ Industry Sector Year 2 Year 8 Bremerton's Tourism Cluster Accomodations and Food Services 94 144 Retail and Wholesale Trade 18 28 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 16 25 Other 10 16 Subtotal 138 212 Spillover Effects on Other Industries in Bremerton and Kitsap County Natural Resources 1 1 Construction, Manufacturing, Utilities 2 2 Retail and Wholesale Trade 11 17 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 9 13 Services 80 123 Government 6 10 Subtotal 108 166 Total Kitsap County 246 378 Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. In year two, the fair share analysis shows that the Boardwalk is associated with 138 jobs in the Bremerton's tourism cluster. These jobs are linked, via the multiplier process, to another 108 jobs in other sectors of the local economy. Likewise, in year eight, tourism spending generated by the Boardwalk will yield 212 jobs in Bremerton's tourism cluster and another 166 jobs elsewhere. In both cases, the job multiplier is 1.80. A job multiplier is a mathematical shortcut that describes the relationship between direct jobs and jobs elsewhere in the economy. 23 In this case, for every 10 tourism jobs created in downtown Bremerton, another 8 jobs are generated or supported in other sectors of the local economy. 23 A Type 11 or Type SAM job multiplier is calculated as: [total jobs / (direct jobs)]. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 26 Table 16: Fiscal Impacts for State and Local Governments (Fair Share Scenario) Class of Tax/ Type of Tax Year 2 Year 8 Indirect Business Taxes Sales taxes $527,500 $808,800 Property taxes $228,500 $350,400 Other taxes $108,900 $166,900 Non -Taxes (fines and fees) $34,000 $52,100 Subtotal $898,900 $1,378,200 Personal Taxes Property taxes $2,500 $3,900 Non -taxes (fines and fees) $25,700 $39,400 Other taxes $2,300 $3,600 Motor vehicle licensing $5,900 $9,100 Subtotal $36,400 $56,000 Social Insurance Taxes Employee contribution $800 $1,200 Employer contribution $3,100 $4,800 Subtotal $3,900 $6,000 Total $939,200 $1,440,200 Source: ECONodhwest using IMPLAN The fiscal impacts shown in Table 16 are derived from the economic activity generated as a result of the Boardwalk. They are based on economic activity generated in downtown Bremerton, as well as spillover effects to other parts of Kitsap County. In,year two, the economic activity associated with the Boardwalk will generate approximately $940,000 in tax revenues for state and local taxing jurisdictions. In year eight, state and local tax revenues reach almost $1.4 million. Pursuant to the requirements of the PSRC Economic Development Grant Application, the fiscal impacts shown in Table 16 are for two time periods -2 years and 8 years after the Boardwalk opens. They do not show how the fiscal impacts vary across years or cumulate over time. This is shown in Figure 9, below. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 27 Figure 9: Annual and Cumulative Tax Impacts for State and Local Governments (Fair Share Scenario) $10.000,000 $9,000,000 - N 7 $6,000,000 C 4 $7,000,000 F $6,000,000 m E E $5,000,000 - S $4,000,000 - -- - - - - - - - b g $3.000,000 - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - -- - - — - m y $2,000,000 - -- - - - - - - --- -- -- $1.000,00 — - - - - - -- - $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ❑Annual DCumulaWe Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. As visitation and spending increase, the annual fiscal impacts grow. Moreover, if the City of Bremerton is successful at receiving a $3.0 million economic development grant from the PSRC, the economic activity and government revenues the Boardwalk generates would, under this fair share analysis, essentially "pay back" the grant within three years. It's important to note that the fiscal impacts shown in Figure 9 assume that visitor spending and taxation patterns remain the same. As with the economic impacts, the fiscal impacts also do not make adjustments for non -local visitors who originate from other parts of the state. Their spending in Bremerton, of course, may simply substitute for spending in other parts of the state. Upper Quintile Scenario In Kitsap County, tourism expenditures increased at an average annual rate of 4.22 percent between 1991 and 2005, ranking Kitsap County 19th among Washington's 39 counties. This average annual growth rate places Kitsap County in the third quintile group, i.e., among 60 percent of the counties with the lowest average annual growth rate in tourism expenditures. A second, more optimistic scenario has Bremerton experiencing an initial bump in tourism once the Boardwalk opens, and then an average annual growth rate that places it 24 Quintiles are calculated by sorting a population or sample in ascending order, and then dividing the data into five equal groups. In this case, the first or lowest quintile represents the eight counties in Washington with the lowest average annual growth rate in tourism spending. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 28 among the top quintile group for counties in Washington. Specifically, this scenario posits a 20 percent bump in tourism 25 and an increase in the average annual growth rate that would then place Bremerton among the top counties in the state. The top quintile group of Washington counties experienced a 5.9 percent average annual growth in tourism spending between 1991 and 2005. Accordingly, this upper quintile scenario has Bremerton's tourism growth rate increasing by 39 percent to just match the average annual growth rate for the top quintile group. Table 17 shows the economic impacts associated with the Boardwalk under this top quintile scenario. Table 17: Economic impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) Study Area / Year 2 - Year 8 Type of Impact Direct Secondary Total Direct Secondary Total Bremerton Output $16,085,770 $4,530,270' $20,616,040 $31,893,990 $8,982,380 $40,876,370 Wages $5,593,390 $1,639,330 $7,232,720 $11,090,270 $3,250,370 $14,340,640 Business Income $779,330 $204,740 $984,070 $1,545,210 $405,950 $1,951,160 Other Income $1,782,940 $933,100 $2,716,040 $3,535,120 $1,850,090 $5,385,210 Jobs 292 45 337 580 91 671 Rest of Kitsap County Output $5,054,650 $6,893,030 $11,947,680 $10,022,090 $15,624,840 $25,646,930 Wages $1,094,260 $1,984,710 $3,078,970 $2,169,640 $3,613,230 $5,782,870 Business Income $993,140 $757,930 $1,751,070 $1,969,150 $2,684,890 $4,654,040 Other Income $503,400 $1,223,980 $1,727,380 $998,110 $1,800,430 $2,798,540 Jobs 104 81 185 206 272 478 Total Kitsap County Output $21,140,420 $11,423,300 $32,563,720 $41,916,080 $22,649,520 $64,565,600 Wages $6,687,650 $3,624,040 $10,311,690 $13,259,910 $7,185,540 $20,445,450 Business Income $1,772,470 $962,670 $2,735,140 $3,514,360 $1,908,720 $5,423,080 Other Income $2,286,340 $2,157,080 $4,443,420 $4,533,230 $4,276,930 $8,810,160 Jobs 396 126 522 786 249 1,035 Source ECONorthwest using IMPLAN Under this more optimistic scenario, in year two, the Boardwalk will have generated $16.1 million in economic activity, including approximately $5.6 million in wages and over 290 jobs for Bremerton's developing tourism cluster. This will stimulate additional economic impacts in downtown Bremerton and elsewhere in Kitsap County. Indeed, countywide, year -two impacts amount to $32.6 million in economic activity, $10.3 million in wages, $2.7 million in small - business income, and 522 jobs. Under this higher growth rate assumption, the economic impacts become significantly larger in year 8. If the demand for Boardwalk amenities continues to grow and local (City, businesses, and community groups) marketing efforts are successful, then it's not inconceivable that Bremerton could experience an increase in visitation that grows much faster than Kitsap County's historical growth rate. If this growth rate pushes Bremerton toward the top quintile of counties in Washington, then, by year eight, the economic impacts for Bremerton and Kitsap County are substantial. Under this more optimistic scenario, in year eight, the Boardwalk will have generated $40.9 million in economic activity in downtown Bremerton and another $25.7 million in economic activity elsewhere in Kitsap County. In terms of employment 25 This 20 percent bump is based on the average annual growth in visitation at the Wenatchee River Front and Chelan Rivewalk Parks over the last five years. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 29 opportunities, this translates into approximately 670 jobs in the downtown Bremerton and almost 480 jobs elsewhere in the county. Figure 10, below, shows how the job impacts grow under this more optimistic top quintile scenario. The income reported in year two and year eight represents the wages and business income going to workers and small businesses in each of those years. Figure 10: Changes in Employment (Top Quintile Scenario) 1200 Year 8 Income = $26,868.500 1.000 800 Year e 600 Income = d $13.046,800 400 LL 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 F Bremerton ❑ Elsewhere in IGtsap County Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN Under this more optimistic top quintile scenario, Table 18 shows that the Boardwalk is associated with just over 290 jobs in Bremerton's tourism cluster two years after opening. These jobs are linked, via the multiplier process, to another 230 jobs in other sectors of the local economy. Likewise, in year eight, tourism spending generated by the Boardwalk will yield 580 jobs in Bremerton's tourism cluster, and another 455 jobs elsewhere. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 30 Table 18: Job impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) Type of Impacts / Industry Sector Year 2 Year 8 Bremerton's Tourism Cluster Accomodations and Food Services 199 395 Retail and Wholesale Trade 38 75 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 34 67 Other 21 43 Subtotal 292 580 Spillover Effects on Other Industries in Bremerton and Kitsap County Natural Resources 2 3 Construction, Manufacturing, Utilities 3 7 Retail and Wholesale Trade 23 46 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 18 36 Services 170 337 Government 13 26 Subtotal 230 455 Total Kitsap County 522 1,035 Source ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. Because our assumptions regarding the specific expenditure patterns of tourists do not change, the job multiplier under this more optimistic growth scenario is the same as under the fair share analysis. The job multiplier for the tourism cluster in Kitsap County is 1.80. Thus, every 10 jobs generated by Boardwalk tourism are linked to another 8 jobs in other sectors of the Kitsap County economy. Table 19: Fiscal impacts (Top Quintile Scenario) Class of Tax / Type of Tax Year 2 Year 8 Indirect Business Taxes Sales taxes $923,300 $2,215,100 Property taxes $400,000 $959,600 Othertaxes $190,600 $457,100 Non -Taxes (fines and fees) $59,600 $142,800 Subtotal $1,573,500 $3,774,600 Personal Taxes Property taxes $4,400 $10,700 Non -taxes (fines and fees) $44,900 $107,800 Othertaxes $4,100 $9,800 Motor vehicle licensing $10,400 $24,900 Subtotal $63,800 $153,200 Social Insurance Taxes Employee contribution $1,400 $3,300 Employer contribution $5,500 $13,100 Subtotal $6,900 $16,400 Total $1,644,200 $3,944,200 Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. Table 19 shows the fiscal impacts for state and local taxing jurisdictions under this more optimistic upper quintile scenario. In year two, the economic activity stimulated throughout Kitsap County by non -local visitor spending generates approximately $1.6 million in tax revenues. In year eight, the total reaches $3.9 million. In both instances, the largest tax component is sales taxes. In Kitsap County, the sales and use tax rate is 8.6 percent. Of this total, the local and state tax rates are 2.1 and 6.5 percent, respectively. Thus, the $2.2 million in sales tax revenues generated by Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 31 economic activity in Kitsap County will add approximately $537,000 in additional county revenues in year eight. Figure 11 shows the annual and cumulative fiscal impacts associated with the Boardwalk under the top quintile scenario. As visitation and spending increase, the annual fiscal impacts grow. Figure 11: Annual and Cumulative Tax Impacts for State and Local Governments (Top Quintile Scenario) 524.000.000 SM X $16.000.000 E $12,000,000 $8.000,00101 $4.000.000 so LED 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ❑Annual 13 CurnWative Source* ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. The fiscal impacts shown in Figure I I assume that visitor spending and taxation patterns remain the same. As with the economic impacts, the fiscal impacts also do not make adjustments for non-local visitors who originate from other pans of the state. Estimating Economic Development Impacts In the longer run, the Boardwalk may improve the local quality of life and expand business opportunities. As a result, the Boardwalk may facilitate additional private investment by attracting (or retaining) new industry or households to Bremerton. ECONorthwest interviewed numerous developers, and business and community leaders, regarding the impact of the Boardwalk on their development plans. Respondents were unanimous that the Boardwalk would enhance the economic development potential of Bremerton. This is what of few of them told us: "Businesses such as our will experience a positive impact, as the area becomes a more desirable location for tourists, shoppers, and urban residents. — Budd Gould, President, Anthony's Restaurants "My business will benefit from increased employee retention. — Eric Anderson, CEO, Art Anderson Associates Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 32 "Our business will benefit from these improvements by helping attract newcomers to the Bremerton area who may be seeking future residence and employment in Kitsap County. " — Leslie and Rick Krueger, Encore Communities "The boardwalk will also attract new homeowners who wish to live in a community committed to residents who appreciate the natural beauty of Puget Sound. " — Kathy Cocus, Interim Executive Director, Economic Development Alliance "The boardwalk will be a natural venue for community events, tourism and recreation opportunities. The increased activity and attraction will help bring restaurants, retail, and other businesses to downtown, creating new jobs and fostering economic vitality. " — Ron Sher, Metrovation "Olympic College will be able to promote the area to attract top candidates to the college. A dynamic city with parks and green spaces is highly sought after by those looking to relocate. " — David Mitchell, President, Olympic College "As a business owner, we benefit greatly from the increased number of permanent residents in our city, the economic flow they generate, and most importantly, their vested interest in Bremerton. " — Tim Quigley, Quigley Insurance Services "The Boardwalk, Evergreen Park and Sewer upgrade projects will further position Bremerton as the city who will lead our community into the future, setting the state for increased employment, economic opportunities, and an exciting urban center for our region. " — Art Castle, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association of Kitsap County Our interviews of business and community leaders clearly showed strong, positive support for the Boardwalk and the economic activity it is expected to generate. Most of these impacts will be captured in the short-term tourism impacts measured in the previous section. From a more long -term, economic development perspective, economic impacts should only be attributed to projects that are, in some fashion, caused by the Boardwalk. For example, at one extreme, suppose a developer constructs a mixed -use project that has 10,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor, and 100 condominium units above. Further, suppose that all of the living spaces were sold to families who just moved to the area. Lastly, suppose that the developer would not have constructed the project without (or "but for ") the Boardwalk and that all of the families who moved to the area did so because the improved quality of life attributed to the Boardwalk. In this example, then, all of the retail activity and jobs, as well as the consumption spending by households could be thought of as new economic activity for the region. This economic activity could be fed into an input - output model to measure the direct and multiplier effects on businesses and workers. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 33 ECONorthwest's survey of local business and community leaders included the following line of questioning to establish or assess the causal relationship between the Boardwalk and economic development projects and/or plans: 1. "How does the Boardwalk Project affect the re- location or expansion plans of your business? " 2. "Without the Boardwalk, would you still have undertaken your project ? With regards to the causative impact of the Boardwalk, respondents indicated that the project —the renovation of the J.C. Penney site, for example —would have proceeded even if the Boardwalk project did not occur. In many instances, planning for their projects originated before the Boardwalk plan was conceived. In other instances, the overwhelming decision to proceed with their development project was the economic development that has occurred in Bremerton over that last three to four years. Despite the lack of sufficient causal evidence to link the Boardwalk to economic development plans, this doesn't mean that the Boardwalk is not important to these plans and/or projects. In all cases, respondents indicated that the Boardwalk would likely generate additional economic activity that will benefit their business or community group. Nor does it mean that the additional economic activity generated by the Boardwalk won't inspire local or non -local developers to increase development activity in the future. Economic development plans change as economic activity changes, and the relationship between the two generally works in the same direction Lastly, the survey results do not suggest that the Boardwalk won't be a significant positive amenity that improves the local quality of life and helps to keep local families from moving out of the area or attracts families —a retired couple or working professionals with children, for example —to move to Bremerton. The City of Bremerton's informal survey suggests that the Boardwalk will, indeed, enhance the local quality of life and better living standards do affect the location decisions of households. The ability of the Boardwalk in reinvigorating the development of downtown Bremerton ultimately will depend on the quality of its design, its integration with other local amenities, how well it is maintained, and the community's success at using it as a catalyst for other infrastructure and amenity improvements. Given the tremendous gains made by the City of Bremerton in just the last few years in attracting new private and public investments, one can be optimistic that the Boardwalk would further the expansion of Bremerton from an old Navy town to a diverse and attractive city to visit and live in. However, the analysis has no basis for saying with certainty how well the community would be able to achieve its goals. Thus, a range of plausible outcomes has been proposed. In order to assess the possible economic impacts from future economic development, Table 20 shows the economic linkages between various selected industry sectors and the Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. 26 This "but for" line of questioning is essential to attribute economic impacts to a program or a project. The recognized methodology can be found in "Public Works Program — Performance Evaluation," prepared by Rutgers University, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Princeton University, National Association of Regional Councils, and the University of Cincinnati for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, May 1997. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 34 Table 20: Linkages Between Potential Economic Development and the Bremerton and Kitsap County Economies (impacts per 10 direct jobs) Total Secondary impacts in Secondary Impacts Secondary Impacts in Ton Jobs in These Sectors are Unked to... Bremerton Elsewhere in Kttsap County Kitsap Coun Jobs Wages Jobs Wages Jobs Wages Retail Furniture and home furnishings stores 4.0 $139,000 2.3 $63,000 6.3 $202,000 Electronics and appliance stores 1.4 $46,000 12 $32,000 2.5 $78,000 Food and beverage stores 2.6 $89,000 1.8 $47,000 4.4 $136,000 Health and personal care stores 3.0 $104,000 2.0 $55,000 5.1 $159.000 Clothing and clothing accessones stores 2.1 $72,000 1.2 $31,000 3.2 $103,000 Sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores 1.5 $53,000 0.9 $24,000 24 $77,000 Miscellaneous store retailers 1.2 $39,000 0.8 $22,000 20 $61,000 Services Museums, historical sites, and parks 35 $93,000 3.0 $77,000 6.6 $170,000 Other amusement, gambling, and recreation 2.3 $75,000 2.1 $52,000 4.5 $127,000 Hotels and motels 1.9 $64,000 1.7 $47,000 3.6 $111,000 Food services and drinking laces 1 14 $40,000 1 1.3 $33,000 1 2.7 $73,000 Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. The economic linkages shown in Table 20 have been calculated for every ten direct jobs that may occur as a result of future business development. That is, 10 jobs in the hotel and motel sector in Bremerton are linked to another 1.9 jobs and $64,000 in wages in other sectors of the Bremerton economy, and 1.7 jobs and $47,000 in wages elsewhere in Kitsap County. To illustrate, suppose the Boardwalk and the economic activity that it generates influences a private developer to construct a new grocery store in Bremerton that will employ 40 people. This investment in Bremerton will have multiplier effects beyond the 40 direct hires. Using the job and wage multipliers reported in Table 20: 1) In Bremerton, the grocery store is linked to another 10.4 jobs (40/10 x 2.6 secondary jobs) and $356,000 in wages (40/10 x $89,000 secondary wages); and 2) Elsewhere in Kitsap County, the grocery store is linked to another 7.2 jobs (40/10 x 1.8 secondary jobs) and $188,000 in wages (40/10 x $47,000), all else remains the same. 27 Families moving to the Bremerton area will have similar multiplier effects for the city and the county. Table 21 shows the multiplier effects associated with $1.0 million in consumption spending by households with an average annual income between $50,000 and $70,000. 27 This assumes that the change in final demand is relatively small compared to the Bremerton and Kitsap County economies. In addition, the multiplier effects shown in Tables 18 and 19 were developed using 2006 IMPLAN data. Economic impacts for spending that occurs to the near future will be more reliable than for spending that occurs at a much later date. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 35 Table 21: Linkages Between Consumption Spending by Households and the Bremerton and Kitsap County Economies (Impacts Per $1,000,000 in Consumption Spending) Impact Area Jobs Wages Bremerton 7.6 $203,000 Elsewhere in Kitsap County 1.7 $58,200 Total Kitsap County 9.3 $261,200 Source: ECONorthwest using IMPLAN. Households purchase a variety of goods and services —from groceries and utilities, to doctor visits and legal services. Table 21 shows that every $1 million dollars in consumption spending is associated with 7.6 jobs and $203,000 in wages in Bremerton, and another 1.7 jobs and $58,200 in wages elsewhere in Kitsap County (all else remains the same). The previous discussion is intended to summarize how additional private investment and new families might generate additional economic activity in Bremerton and Kitsap County. In short, spending by businesses and households will directly generate economic activity in Bremerton that will have ripple effects on other sectors and other areas of Kitsap County. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 36 Appendix A: Comments from the City of Bremerton's Survey Comments on Commuting: 1. We see the future plans of Bremerton and it's a beautiful picture. Need all the support we can get from anyone and everyone. Beautiful site for people on ferry coming in from Seattle. More tourists to come with everyone's help. 2. We love to catch the Port Orchard foot ferry to Bremerton and walk through Bremerton's new construction. We can't wait for the new boardwalk to walk to Evergreen Park. We are trying to be healthy and exercise more. 3. Excellent idea. Need to incorporate a connection to the (future) Manette Bridge to enable people on foot and on bikes to travel conveniently (and car free) between Manette district and downtown. 4. I would love to come over on the ferry then ride my bike on the boardwalk. I would use it several times a week. 5. I will use the boardwalk mainly for commuting, so I don't get harassed by police and other people on the roads. 6. I would love to see a path that connects Bremerton to Silverdale, we need more bike paths. 7. We want a beautiful bridge with bike lanes and room for walking. This would be a legacy for future generations and happiness for current ones! 8. Would be great to access dentist office and take foot ferry instead of driving around. Now I'll be able to walk to his office from the park at the end of the walkway. 9. We bought a unit in The 400 to shorten a commute to Seattle (easy walk on/walk off). Also enjoy the future waterfront and marina. Would love to have more commercial in the area (shops, grocery stores, etc). Moved here from Kingston and we now only use one vehicle. 10. We love using the foot ferry to take the ferry to Seattle or to go to the Blackberry Festival from Port Orchard. 11. We take the Port Orchard foot ferry to the Bremerton Boardwalk all the time throughout the year. This year we visited the waterfront in Bremerton and it was terrific! Keep up the good work! 12. This would truly be a blessing to have such easy access for me to walk and bike as I do not own a car in Bremerton. 13. It looks like a good idea for people commuting from Port Orchard to use as a passage to Olympic College. I am currently a student there and would love the calm walk. 14. This would be very helpful for college and university students who commute from out of town. A direct route from the ferry to the college and offsite universities would ease commuting woes. 14. This would give my kids headed to Olympic College a safe way to school, plus help in the tourist area. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 37 16. I work at PSNS and love the walk and view during my lunch time break. On occasion I need to take the Port Orchard ferry home and how nice it is to have a safe, dry place to wait for the boat to come in. Bremerton has needed a face lift for a long time. Thank you! 17. I think that it is an amazing idea. It will help make Bremerton more into commuting and lower the crime rate and poverty! Also, it will give the kids a good place to be so they won't get into trouble! 18. This would really bring tourists like me who are visiting without cars to Bremerton, which is currently given very short swift in travel guides. With the new museums and this boardwalk, Bremerton would be an easy ferry day trip destination from Seattle. Comments on Parking: 1. Parking is an issue for our guests (at The 400), but otherwise we love living, working, and playing in downtown Bremerton. 2. Expanded parking for cars will help with boating use. I use the ramp a lot and enjoy the park as well. Improvement will draw in the community and take some pressure off the park as well. 3. Where shall we park? I got a $45 ticket taking my granddaughter to Evergreen Park! 4. This will give people a very good impression when coming to town and will draw people into the downtown district. But the parking has to improve!!! Comments on Safety and ADA Access: 1. Don't forget the needs of pedestrians outside of the Harborside District, many people would prefer to walk if it was safer. 2. This will be great for us who live downtown, particularly for my husband who is wheelchair bound. 3. Great idea, we need more walking paths. 4. I am very excited about the safety of being able to go for a walk with my kids and not having to worry about cars. Also great for bike rides. 5. I think it's a great idea; we are always looking for a place to go for a safe walk and to take the kids and guests from out of town. It's about time that Bremerton upgrade itself. 6. Really looking forward to riding our bikes as a family in a safe location on the walkway (boardwalk). 7. I think the boardwalk is a good step towards a better pedestrian trail system, but don't stop there! 8. I can't wait for this to be completed as we live off of Highway 16 and have no sidewalks or anywhere else to walk for health reasons. 9. Elevators are helpful to handicap people, people with temporary injuries, etc. 10. I work at PSNS and love the walk and view during my lunch time break. On occasion I need to take the Port Orchard ferry home and how nice it is to have a Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 38 safe, dry place to wait for the boat to come in. Bremerton has needed a face lift for a long time. Thank you! 11. Very neat idea. I'm glad Bremerton is finally getting cleaned up and creating a safer environment. 12. Because of medical issues, I cannot tolerate auto exhaust, so the boardwalk will enable me to walk downtown from my home near Evergreen Park (something I have been unable to do since 2001). 13. It needs to have better handicap and wheelchair access!!! 14. We live in Manette, this will help to access all amenities of downtown Bremerton without having to travel with traffic and cars. 15. Looking forward to the whole downtown revitalization — the boardwalk will be a great way to get pedestrians safely to and from Olympic College and the waterfront. 16. I think the boardwalk project is a great idea to help beautify the waterfront. It is also a safer path for those that walk the roads in Bremerton. It will also help beautify not just the Bremerton terminal and waterfront park, but also Evergreen Park. 17. Need more parking, grocery store, security at night, highly safe railing (unlike what is at the new park!) The ends of pipes are open and sharp! 18. Need to have pedestrian/vehicle access to any improvement in downtown area. Without those two items, nothing will have complete success. 19. It would be nice to be able to safely walk or ride bikes from the college to the ferry or to the shipyard. Comments on Economical Impact, Tourism, Shopping: 1. We are residents of Belfair and come to Kitsap County on a regular basis. We are looking forward to the continued improvement of downtown Bremerton. 2. My friends and I like to kayak to restaurants and downtown areas. Nice to see how we'll be able to land on the various natural beach areas. Just as important, I want to see a bicycle trail that connects to Olympic College, Clear Creek Trail, and Recovery Trail in the Port Townsend area. Think big — you folks are doing great! 3. Great tourist site! 4. Great project with gateway access to the city from Perry. Will tie in nicely with new Maritime Museum and development. 5. This would really bring tourists like me who are visiting without cars to Bremerton, which is currently given very short swift in travel guides. With the new museums and this boardwalk, Bremerton would be an easy ferry day trip destination from Seattle. 6. This is something Bremerton really needs. Bremerton could be a real destination city and this boardwalk will be a huge draw. My family and I already use the downtown area more since it was improved and this will increase our interest. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 39 7. Would love to see personalized pavers for sale as a means to obtain private funding. 8. I am interested in purchasing personalized bricks on the new walkway or at Evergreen Park. 9. As a lifetime resident of Bremerton, I love it ... good project! Good for the economy and the environment. 10. I think this will be a huge improvement to our tourist attraction and fitness for our overweight population, giving us a beautiful area to walk, jog, etc. and just enjoy the views. 11. A boardwalk would help increase activity downtown, bringing in more customers and business, as well as providing a natural resource that is always welcome - the natural beauty of the Puget Sound. 12. Excellent idea. Will promote more business within the area. 13. I am excited about this project! I own a house in Manette and think it will energize my neighborhood, as well as bring beauty and "new views" to the downtown area. Evergreen Park will benefit and inevitable boosts to the local economy will take place. 14. Great project! Will bolster our community, just as similar projects have enhanced communities in other cities. 15. I think this plan will entice me to bring my family to downtown Bremerton to shop and dine during the day and evenings. 16. I don't personally have a business in Bremerton. However, we think the boardwalk project is fabulous! I am a former resident of Bainbridge Island and Silverdale. I now live within the city limits on Kitsap Lake. We know so many people throughout the county and even out of Seattle who absolutely love downtown Bremerton! The economic growth and popularity among younger people (with the parks and events, theaters, etc.) is inevitable. Go Bremerton! 17. This would be an excellent day trip from Poulsbo! Kitsap County needs this. 18. Expands access to downtown Bremerton — which would make it a destination! 19. I like the idea. It will stimulate employment opportunities for carpenters like myself. 20. I think this idea is a great way to attract tourists from Seattle to use Evergreen Park. I believe Evergreen Park will become more popular from this project. 21. I feel this is a wonderful option for Bremerton. I have lived in Kitsap County for 40 years and this project is long overdue. This will bring life back to Bremerton as well as business and tourists. Comments on Recreation/Walking/Health & Fitness: 1. I think this will be a huge improvement to our tourist attraction and fitness for our overweight population, giving us a beautiful area to walk, jog, etc. and just enjoy the views. 2. Sounds like a great idea to bring more people to downtown and provide more recreation opportunities. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 40 3. The boardwalk is a capital idea, while it takes time I can hardly wait for its completion so I can walk from The 400 to Evergreen Park beside a beautiful waterway. 4. We have a walking group at work (KPS Health Plans) and we walk Evergreen Park daily and love the park. We are very excited about the boardwalk and sewer project. We want to be the first to walk it! 5. This will make a wonderful walking spot! 6. Makes the boardwalk and Evergreen Park and downtown Bremerton a destination to visit and explore. 7. Hurry! Hurry! We need the boardwalk for exercise and better property values. Bring the excitement past the downtown core. 8. We are looking forward to the increased marine capacity. 9. Go for it! I am looking forward to walking on it! Hot dog carts will fit nicely! 10. The new design for downtown Bremerton is fantastic, keeps traditions of old town charm with the convenience and practicality of a metropolis. The walkways will help with routing and commuting and exercise promotion will be greatly improved. 11. I can't wait to use the boardwalk for health and fitness. Bring it on! 12. I'm going to love it! When I heard a boardwalk for everyone to walk, ride bikes, and fish on (maybe), I said "This is a great idea!" If I am at Evergreen Park and want to go to my grandpa's shop, I can have fun walking there on the boardwalk. 13. Really would love to rollerblade on the boardwalk, it is great exercise. 14. Enjoy the boardwalk hop, someday it will go to the Evergreen Park by the water. 15. We love coming down for family walks, a full boardwalk would just make it more fun! 16. We love all the improvements in the downtown. Our family enjoys walking along the boardwalk as it is, and we enjoy the festival at Evergreen Park. The idea of joining the two is a natural progression. 17. What a wonderful place to have family time! 18. 1 am so excited and can't wait to walk/jog on our new boardwalk! 19. I work downtown and would use the boardwalk for walking on breaks. 20. This will be so great! We've seen the gray whales at Evergreen Park and would love to watch them from the boardwalk. 21. I'm really starting to love coming to downtown to walk now! So I can't wait until the rest is done. Ferry parking is ok ... keep up the good work. 22. The Bremerton boardwalk project is a great idea. After its completion, I expect to use it several times a year for leisure purposes. 23. This is a great addition to downtown Bremerton. I work in the Harborside Building and would use it regularly for walking/biking and as a path to Evergreen Park. 24. Wonderful idea. Will be used by children from our daycare facility. 25. Sounds like a great idea environmentally and for outdoor recreation. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 41 26. This will be a great opportunity to walk, there are so few places to walk now. 27. Looking forward to spending a lot of time walking on the boardwalk. 28. We really enjoy what is currently available to the public! We have taken our out - of -town family to enjoy the fountains and view. Keep it up! 29. Extended family members enjoy the fountain park. Looking forward to the boardwalk completion. We will bring friends and family to the area to enjoy. Had visitors from Japan travel across Seattle ferry to Bremerton. 30. The boardwalk will be great for bike rides and relaxing entertainment. I think this will bring Bremerton back to being one of America's finest cities. 31. Will be a great recreation site, good for walking, jogging with a great view. A beautiful waterfront access area will draw many people, not only locals, but visitors to the area. 32. I was on the current boardwalk for the first time earlier this week and I was so pleased to see the changes to the area. Having a father with medical disabilities, it struck me that this boardwalk will be an excellent place to bring him to enjoy the waterfront. He loves the outdoors and will spend hours enjoying this. 33. We are looking forward to visiting the boardwalk when it is completed. It's great to see steps being taken to revitalize downtown Bremerton and to promote physical activity for local residents. 34. We would walk the boardwalk very often. We can't wait for it to come! 35. We love the current boardwalk and would really enjoy an extended one! We could do some serious walking like we currently do almost everyday somewhere else! 36. I think I will feel like walking on water. 37. Good running route. 38. This is a good opportunity for families to go out and have a nice walk. 39. That's so cool! People will love it, a great place to enjoy an afternoon. 40. I think walking along the water for exercise would be wonderful — therapeutic, relaxing, and extremely peaceful. Great stress relief between classes for Olympic College or daily stress relief. 41. We brought the grandkids to the Kitsap Conference Center last weekend from Arkansas, and they loved it. 42. What a wonderful thing for Bremerton, it will be fabulous when the walk is finished and we can enjoy all of pleasures of living in the Pacific Northwest. 43. Sounds like a great idea to bring more people to downtown and provide more recreation opportunities. 44. Great project, I will use it for running. Recreation Suggestions: 1. "Fishing" — promoting fishing for youth and seniors and people who are paying for this public facility. Without fishing from boardwalk, I will not support the boardwalk unless public fishing is allowed. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 42 2. I would like to see a kayak launching area — we would use this area for out of town visitors and ourselves. 3. Need more bicycling identified, safe areas to take my family to enjoy. Recreation keeps kids out of trouble. 4. Improve walking trail and waterfront view. 5. Please provide support for fishing. 6. Go for it! I am looking forward to walking on it! Hot dog carts will fit nicely! 7. Need an underwater diving park! Combine with the boardwalk! 8. How about a walking trail (bike trail ?) extending from boardwalk to Port Orchard? Improves community access and possible bike (shipyard) communities. Great improvement for entire Sinclair communities. 9. 1 think this will be a boon for the entire area. I would like to see festivals, health fairs, etc. held on the boardwalk. My feeling is that it would draw people from all around the greater Puget Sound area more. 10. Suggest contacting PSNS about donating a periscope off one of the recycled subs for mounting and viewing of ferries, boats and Sinclair Inlet. Similar to the Pearl Harbor Sub Museum. 11. Great idea and good for social interaction. Needs some benches if it is going to be 2 miles long. I don't see any in the graphics. 12. It would be great if we could add a marine /tidepool educational center! General Comments and Suggestions: 1. My wife and I have been reading about the proposed Bremerton boardwalk project and are very excited about the possibilities it offers to our city. Bremerton is undergoing a downtown renovation with the building of the new condo units on the waterfront and the new park by the ferry landing in addition to all the other projects such as the new Naval Museum. The boardwalk will be a significant, spectacular contribution to that revitalization. It will be a major, distinctive shoreline feature for Bremerton and may ultimately become the symbol of the city (much as the Space Needle has for Seattle, but obviously on a smaller scale). We look forward to visiting the area and strolling along the new boardwalk once it is completed. It will definitely be a destination for us and our out -of -town guests who visit. We lived in San Diego for 35 years before moving to Bremerton and I can tell you that Bremerton appears to be on the cusp of a substantial revitalization, much as San Diego has accomplished over the last three decades. Downtown San Diego is now a tourist attraction and a highly desirable location to live and play. We can see the same thing happening here in Bremerton and we believe that this boardwalk will be an important catalyst for that change. Let's get it built as soon as we can. 2. Fantastic idea! We're looking forward to using the walk! 3. I am very excited for the future boardwalk to Evergreen Park! Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 43 4. This is my first time in the area. We've come from Portland, Oregon by boat and nearly missed Bremerton en route to Poulsbo. Stopped when we saw the festival on the water and am very excited to see the development of the waterfront for tourism/boaters /visitors. 5. Great development plan! Keep improving the waterfront. I'm impressed by the many innovations the city has done to make the waterfront an accessible and sightseeing destination. It gives to its citizens and visitors alike. 6. I think that the purpose of this boardwalk is a great idea. Sewage definitely needs to be cleared up. I'm also excited about being able to take walks and jogging along the waterfront. Amazing! 7. I live in Manette and hope more trails and walkways, will be in site for the future. We support the boardwalk and are excited for its completion. 8. Will be a great addition — will tie downtown to Evergreen Park and bring more renovation. 9. The boardwalk at Bremerton is delightful — the extension will make it an eventual world attraction (like Lahaina on Maui). All who are involved should really go for it. 10. I enjoy the detail into cleaning up the waterfront and re- opening downtown Bremerton. 11. Really can't wait to see the project finished, it looks great! I think it will really beautify this area. 12. Great job! Can't wait! 13. This is a great project for Bremerton to revitalize the town. This project needs to happen and is well worth the investment. 14. It is an amazing idea! I would use the boardwalk everyday if it is put in. 15. This is awesome! A phenomenal project that will really put Bremerton on the map! 16. I am so excited to see the boardwalk up and being used. ASAP is my comment. I am so proud to be part of the City of Bremerton. 17. I am so excited to see the continued improvements in the downtown area. Geographically, Bremerton is the most beautiful area. Am so glad that plans are in place to retain and highlight this beauty. 18. This is the best thing anyone could possibly have in this downtown area. So much to offer. This is the last of the Kitsap waterfront. Seeing the development is rewarding and inspiring. So much to offer. Potential is so great. 19. Please start soon, this is going to be great! 20. This is great, it can't happen fast enough! 21. I will use this boardwalk, it is a great idea and will really enhance Bremerton. 22. Wonderful idea! I can't wait. I think the boardwalk is a great plan. Bremerton is back, I'm proud! 23. I am amazed, it is great! 24. Looking forward to the new addition to our community. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 44 25. This will be a beautiful and functional addition to the city and society. Thank you. 26. Great job, we love the vision. 27. The vision for Bremerton's redevelopment is perfect!! 28. Build it! The sooner the better! 29. We are really hopeful for the boardwalk to help children in our community. I own a home. Please help build my community. 30. I believe the Bremerton boardwalk will be a real plus for the area. I'm looking forward to the completion of this project. Great idea. 31. We join with you in the revitalization of Bremerton. Yes, go for it! 32. This is so important for the "new" city of Bremerton. We totally support it 100 %. 33. I love the design and am looking forward to taking long walks here! 34. Great job, can't wait to see the dream come true! 35. This is fantastic to see Bremerton coming back to life! 36. I would be thrilled to have the boardwalk! 37. I think this is a good idea for the community. 38. Beautiful place to have in Bremerton. 39. This is one that we are most excited about. 40. I hope this proceeds. Sounds like a great project. 41. Great ideas! Can't wait to see and use it. We love coming to Bremerton by boat and car. 42. What a dream come true. Bremerton will shine! We will call with grant opportunities. 43. Very well thought out project! 44. Wonderful, wonderful, I love it! 45. This is vital to improving all of Kitsap County. 46. Can't wait to see this project finished. 47. Since the "Bremer Stranglehold" was taken off downtown, this idea, much like West Vancouver's walkway, would be great! 48. Please build this quickly! 49. Lived here for over 70 years, I am very excited about "everything" being done downtown. Great job! 50. We are a family of six and can't wait for this to be done! 51. Anything to make the eyesore we call Bremerton more visually appealing is a plus. 52. Sounds like it will add in a positive way to downtown Bremerton. 53. This project is amazing! We can't wait to have something this fun and exciting to use and to show out -of -town guests! 54. Nice place to visit! Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 45 55. I think this will be a great project for the area, I am looking forward to going there and enjoying the new amenities. 56. 1 think this is a good idea for all local citizens. Do not upscale Bremerton too much. 57. Sounds like it would be great. Would make Bremerton a better city! 58. Multiple funding and uses is a great idea. Good asset for the city. 59. It will be a great addition for the development of Bremerton/Kitsap County. 60. Excellent idea to create a reason to move to Bremerton. Now address crime, cheaper rentals, and more ownership of homes. 61. Looks beautiful! 62. This will help build a better Bremerton that is people friendly. 63. Keep up the good work for the people of Bremerton. 64. I would enjoy it with my friends. 65. It looks like a great idea, I would definitely take advantage of it. 66. 1 haven't spent too much time in Bremerton — this will definitely bring me to the city. Good luck! 67. Very nice project. Bremerton doesn't have a nice walking area and this will be awesome. 68. Great idea. It's about time that the waterfront area is improved. We look forward to enjoying the boardwalk. 69. Good idea for entire county! 70. I can't think of anything that would benefit the city more as it continues its rebirth. 71. Looks awesome, way to clean up Bremerton! 72. This boardwalk looks fantastic! A great idea to spice up our waterfront. 73. It's wonderful seeing this on the brink of coming alive. I worked on the neighborhood plan that first promoted this vision! 74. Yes, get it done! We need something for people to do downtown. 75. We are encouraged to see what the future will hold for Bremerton. 76. Great plan, the idea of the elevator is exciting — great job! 77. Fabulous idea, about time! 78. Let's get this thing done! I love it. Please make sure design and construction of it do not harm shorelines and marine habitat and maybe even enhance marine and shore life. 79. Great idea for use of grant money. 80. I've lived here 35 years and I love what is happening to Bremerton. Thank you Cary Bozeman and city leaders! 81. I feel this is a wonderful option for Bremerton. I have lived in Kitsap County for 40 years and this project is long overdue. This will bring life back to Bremerton as well as business and tourists. 82. This sounds like a fantastic project to revitalize a decaying downtown. Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 46 83. I knew Bremerton had a far- sighted city government (unlike B.I.!) Good luck, can't wait to see it finished! Negative Comment: 1. As a taxpayer, I am disgusted at the flagrant disregard that this county has for conservative economics. I am tired of having my hard -earned dollars being thrown away every time you decide that a building is not new enough. Construction like the Manette Bridge and our school building are not disposable. Furthermore, traffic in the new downtown is now a nightmare that keeps me away whenever I can avoid this area. General Suggestions: 1. Come up with money to remove houses at the end of bridge that are an eyesore. Bridge pedestrian walk/bike lanes on side to access from boardwalk. 2. Boat slips — would have been nice if we were able to vote on this before the fact. 3. A year ago, I suggested adding bronze statues along the boardwalk that would be interactive for children. Each one would have a sign giving clues to what might come next. Maybe animal statues as opposed to characters. 4. We would love to see Shakespeare in the Park here in Bremerton! We travel to see Worden or Greenstage productions (they are high quality productions) and would love to see these groups on this side of the sound. 5. Have a permanent gazebo -style raised platform for Sunday concerts (as they do in Mexico). 6. I'd like to see a walk -in movie, an arcade downtown, also it would be nice to see a music store, and men's clothing store for those of us here in Bremerton so we don't have to travel all the way into Silverdale. 7. As a musician who has performed music locally for festivals for approx. 18 years, it would be nice to have a venue for festivals. Love to have a covered stage /amphitheater. 8. Looking forward to amphitheater for better events at Evergreen Park. 9. Please include lots of benches (sponsored ?) made of concrete or wood Boardwalk Impacts ECONorthwest Page 47 Exhibit B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Section 108 provides communities and states with a means of leveraging their CDBG funds to obtain additional financing resources for economic development, public facilities, large -scale physical development projects and housing rehabilitation. Regulations governing the Section 108 program may be found at Title 24 Code of Federal Register Part 570, Subpart M "Loan Guarantees ". ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS AND ACTIVITIES Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include the following public entities: • CDBG entitlement entities, and • Nonentitlement communities that are assisted in the submission of applications by States that administer the CDBG program. Eligible Activities Activities eligible for Section 108 financing include: • Economic development activities eligible under CDBG; • Acquisition of real property; • Rehabilitation of publicly -owned real property; • Related relocation costs; • Clearance, demolition, and removal on acquired or rehabilitated public property (including environmental cleanup); • Site preparation including construction, reconstruction, or installation of public facilities related to property acquired or rehabilitated using Section 108 funds or for economic development purposes; • Payment of interest on the guaranteed loan and issuance costs of public offerings; • Debt service reserves; • Housing rehabilitation eligible under CDBG; and • In limited circumstances, housing construction as part of community economic development. Public entities may directly use the funds or may re -loan funds to businesses, non - profits or other third parties to undertake eligible activities. All CDBG regulations apply. As with the CDBG program, projects and activities must either principally benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the elimination or prevention of slums and blight, or meet urgent needs of the community. Section 108 loan guarantee funds are included in the requirement that 70% of all CDBG expenditures must benefit persons of low and moderate income. HOW THE PROGRAM OPERATES Maximum Commitment Amount Commitments are limited as follows: • An entitlement entity may apply for up to five times the public entity's latest CDBG entitlement amount, minus any outstanding Section 108 commitments or principal balances on Section 108 loans. • A nonentitlement entity may apply for up to five times the latest CDBG amount received by its State, minus any outstanding Section 108 commitments or principal balances on Section 108 loans for which the State has pledged its CDBG as security. State programs may apply additional restrictions. Financing Source Section 108 obligations are financed annually through underwritten public offerings in which fixed rate notes are sold to private investors. To ensure the marketability of Section 108 notes, 1 HUD provides a 100 percent full faith and credit guarantee to investors. Financing between public offerings is provided through an interim lending facility established by HUD. Although HUD coordinates the funding process, it does not have a direct role in the flow of funds. The interim lender and investors provide funds, underwriters and the Fiscal Agent manage the transactions, and the locality and any third party participants borrow the funds. Security Security for the loan guarantee includes a pledge by the public entity or State (in the case of nonentitlement entities) of its current and future CDBG funds. The CDBG funds are not escrowed and may continue to be used as planned. Additional security is also required, which provides a safeguard to reduce the risk to CDBG funds. The additional security requirements will be determined on a case -by- case basis, but could include assets financed by the guaranteed loan. Loan Repayment The maximum repayment period for a Section 108 loan is 20 years. Interim loan interest payments are due quarterly on the first day of the months of February, May, August, and November. On permanent loans, principal payments are due once a year on August 1 and interest payments are due twice a year on August I and February 1. Principal payments must be made in increments of $1,000. Interest begins accruing from the date the funds are deposited in the entity's account. HUD has the ability to structure the principal amortization to match the needs of the project and borrower. Prepayment Investors buying the Section 108 notes are guaranteed the timely payment of principal and interest for a ten -year period. Technically, the borrower cannot prepay the loan during this period. However, by guaranteeing the income stream to the investor through a deposit of funds with a Fiscal Agent, the borrower is defeasing or voiding the Section 108 obligation. Interim loans may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Jurisdictions do have the options of remaining in the interim financing facility for the term of the loan. Interest Rates. Interest rates on interim borrowing are priced at the three -month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus 20 basis points (0.2 %). Interest rates on obligations sold in public offerings will be determined by market conditions at the time but generally will be slightly lower than yields on Federal agency securities (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) with comparable terms. Financing Fees The only financing fees of the Section 108 program are those related to issuance of the Section 108 notes, such as fees to the underwriters and the Fiscal Agent and any other expenses related to the offering. Total financing fees will generally be one -half to one percent (0.5% - 1.0 %) of principal. Other than these up -front fees, no additional maintenance fees are charges for permanent Section 108 notes. Interim loans are charged a $100 quarterly fee. Reizulations. All CDBG program regulations such as citizen participation, Davis - Bacon, and relocation /displacement compliance must be met. The environmental assessment must be completed prior to incurring or expending any project costs. Developing an Application Applications for Section 108 guarantees are accepted throughout the year. Public entities wishing to apply for Section 108 loan guarantee assistance are advised to contact HUD in advance for guidance in preparing an application. Tor assistance contact: Donna J. Batch, Region X Economic Development Specialist, at (206) 220 -5374 or donna.batch @hud got 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A z MEMORANDUM To: Bremerton City Council From: Made Vita, CDBG/HOME Administrator Date: October 21, 2009 Re: Section 108 Loan Application for Bremerton Boardwalk On August 26th, 2009 Public Works staff announced to City Council the award of a $1,750,000 HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant for the Bremerton Boardwalk Project, and received permission from Council to apply for CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee funding in the amount of $2,800,000—a condition of accepting the BEDI grant. The application is now ready for Council consideration and approval. If approved, the application will be submitted to HUD for approval and inclusion in the City's Annual Acton Plan. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Section 108 provides communities with a source of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects. All CDBG rules and regulations apply to these funds. In addition to being an eligible activity, all projects must meet one of the three National Objectives: principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in the elimination or prevention of slum and blight, or meet an urgent need. Section 108 loans are not risk-free, however; local governments borrowing funds guaranteed by Section 108 must pledge their current and future CDBG allocations to cover the loan amount as security for the loan. Such public investment is often needed to inspire private economic activity, providing the initial resources or simply the confidence that private firms and individuals may need to invest in distressed areas. To provide a safeguard to CDBG funds, other collateral is required, as well as a viable source of funds for repaying the loan. The amount of City of Bremerton Section 108 funds currently available is $2,874,070—five (5) times the City's last CDBG Entitlement. Unlike CDBG funds, Section 108 is not an annual allocation. The $2.8 million is our loan capacity and once obligated to projects; the loan fund is depleted until repaid. As you look through the proposal, please consider the following: • Proiect Readiness Is the project ready to submit a final application to HUD? • Lencith of Loan: Quicker payback restores Section 108 loan capacity sooner. • Community Benefit: Does the low-income population benefit? What is the overall public benefit? 0 Feasibility: Is collateral adequate and reasonable? Is repayment cash stream available / reasonable? A second public hearing will be held once the funds are received. No contracts will be signed until all project funding and permits are in place. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of these items please do not hesitate to contact Made Vila at (360) 473-5375. Page 1 of 1 Christine Grenier From: Roy Runyon [d4bremerton @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:35 AM To: City Council Subject: CDBG Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Several council members still have concerns regarding HUD -BEDI grants and associated CDBG Sect. 108 loan funding: 1. May HUD -BEDI grants be used to clean up brownfields on private property (i.e. marine industrial properties off Pennsylvania Ave.)? 2. What other properties or projects besides Evergreen Park and the Boardwalk extension have been considered for HUD -BEDI grant and Sect. 108 loan funding? 3. At what point does the City incur debt service on the Sect. 108 loan? 4. What funding sources will be used to pay debt service? 5. When can the Council expect an update to the ECONORTHWEST study of Boardwalk economic impacts? Thanks, Roy 10/21/2009 DATE SUBMITTED: AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMER "TON 13 CITY COUNCIL ......................................................... ............................... SUBJECT: Public Hearing and adoption of Committee Meeting Date: 10/14/2009 Resolution No. 310 1 approving the 2010 COUNCIL MEETING Date: 10/21/2009 Community Development Block Grant Department: DCD — Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations. Presenter: P. Elliott Phone: 360 - 473 -5211 SUMMARY: On May 7`", 2008, City Council approved the 2009 CDBG / HOME Policy Plan outlining the CDBG and HOME funding allocation process. Based on that policy, the program's Citizens Advisory Committees have developed funding recommendations for Council consideration and approval. If approved, these submissions will be sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the 2010Annual Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution IV 0. 31 a/ Exhibit A — 2010 Funding Recommendations Exhibit B — 2010 Project Descriptions 2. Staff Memo FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Pass through HUD funding of an estimated $474,769 (CDBG) and HOME ($530,000) APPROVALS: r DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: ` COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ` CONSENT AGENDA ❑ GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3tol approving the 2010 Community Development Block Grant Funding Recommendations and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the contracts with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented once all funding has been secured and HUD has approved the Annual Action Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action RESOLUTION NO. 3101 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting the 2010 CDBG /HOME Funding Recommendations. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is an entitlement community which receives a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) each year from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and also receives funding from HUD's Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) fund via an interlocal agreement with Kitsap County; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton conducts a competitive annual process to determine allocation of CDBG and HOME entitlement; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is required to establish a Policy Plan for the City's management of its HUD entitlement, including outlining the citizen participation plan, application and review processes, and eligibility and implementation requirements for grant funded projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton's 2010 Policy Plan citizen participation plan establishes a Citizen Advisory Committee to assist the Department of Community Development in reviewing CDBG and HOME applications by interviewing applicants and recommending annual project allocation decisions to the Bremerton City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton received twenty -two CDBG grant applications and two HOME applications by the application deadline of July 17, 2009, and the CDBG / HOME Citizen Advisory Committee has reviewed, interviewed and discussed each of the 21 eligible CDBG funding requests received; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG /HOME staff on Monday, September 21, 2009 posted on the City's website and on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 advertised in the Kitsap Sun a 30 -day written public comment period commencing September 21, 2009 and concluding at a public hearing on Wednesday, October 21, 2009; and WHEREAS, CDBG/HOME staff held a Public Meeting on October 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, no comments were received during the advertised public comment period; and 1 2010 CDBG/HOME Funding Recommendation WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG /HOME staff presents the Citizen Advisory Committee's recommendations to the City Council for adoption; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The 2010 CDBG /HOME Funding Recommendation attached hereto is hereby adopted, and will be incorporated into the 2010 Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval. SECTIONS. Severability. If any one 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. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2009. CECIL MCCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk 2 2010 CDBGIHOME Funding Recommendation 2010 Block Grant Funding Requests and Citizen Advisory Committee Funding Recommendations CDBG Capital Agency Pro'ectTitle Funding ActivityType AmtRequested Recommended Archdiocesan Housing Authority New Carpet for Common Areas CDBG Capital $47,694 $45,000 Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound Bremerton Teen Center CDBG Ca ital $150,000 $86,625 Bremerton Foodline Emergency Power Energy Upgrade CDBG Ca dal $20,000 $12,500 COB Parks and Recreation Matan Park Improvements CDBG Capital $80,000 $80,000 Kitsap Community Resources Weatherization and Related Minor Home Repair CDBG Ca dal $100,000 $86,625 Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authon Nollwood Public Housing Lighting Im rovements CDBG Ca ital $88,302 $75,000 Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority Nollwood Public Housing Community Room and ADA Improvements CDBG lCapital $66,060 $0 $552,0561 $385,750 CDBG Public Services Agency Pro'ectTitie Funding ActivityType AmtRequested Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound After School and Summer Program Support CDBG Public Service $10,000 $0 Bremerton Foodline ftency Salaries CDBG Public Service $18,000 $13,100 Bremerton High School Pay It Forward Scholarships CDBG Public Service $7,500 $0 Bremerton Services Association Chuckwa on Meals On Wheels CDBG Public Service $23,000 $16,600 Catholic Community Services Benedict House CDBG Public Service $25,000 $12,500 COB Parks and Recreation Summer Playground Program CDBG Public Service $12,500 $0 Kitsap Community Resources Emergency and Transitional Housing Services CDBG Public Service $25,000 $12,500 Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority Nollwood Youth Programs CDBG Public Service $13,887 $0 Kitsap Family YMCA Childcare Scholarships CDBG Public Service $10,000 $8,353 Kitsa Sexual Assault Child Abuse Intervention CDBG Public Service $15,732 $7,866 Literacy Council of Kitsap Literacy for Hispanic Families CDBG Public Service $10,000 $5,000 RMH Services Untreated Mentally III CDBG Public Service $20,000 $0 Salvation Army SaIIVs Place CDBG Public Service $36,000 retracted Washington CASH City of Bremerton MicroCredrt Initiative CDBG Public Service $10,000 $5,000 YWCA ALIVE Legal Advocacy CDBG Public Service $13,5001 $8,100 $250,1191 $89,019 HOME Agency Pro ectTitle Funding ActivitvTvoo AmtRe uested l Kitsap Community Resources Transitonal Housing Acquisition - 534 Moms Ct HOME IHOME I $353,000 $000 KitsapMental Health Services 113urwell Place Renovation I HOME 1HOME $530,0001 $530,000 $883,0001 $530,000 m X W . D EXHIBIT B 2010 CDBG PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Administration: Total Requested: $169,311.60; APPROVED Funding: $169,311.60 City of Bremerton Department of Community Development — CDBG Program Administration Requested: $118,692 CDBG funds will provide operating costs for overall program administration, including salaries for the Block Grant Program Administrator and the Block Grant Program Coordinator and reimbursement to the City for other costs such as information technology, public information, telecommunications, and any required training and travel. Recommended: $118,692 APPROVED via adoption of 2010 Policy Plan (4/1512009) City of Bremerton Department of Community Development — HOME Program Administration Requested: $50,619.60 HOME funds will provide operating costs for overall program administration, including salaries for the Block Grant Program Administrator and the Block Grant Program Coordinator and reimbursement to the City for other costs such as information technology, public information, telecommunications, and any required training and travel. Half of this amount is paid to Kitsap County Block Grant for administrative services provided in relation to its role as HOME Consortium Lead Agency. Recommended: $50,619.60 APPROVED via adoption of 2010 Policy Plan (4115/2009) Public Services Prolects: Total Requested: $250,119; Projected Funding: $89,019 Bremerton Foodline — Agency Salaries 2010 Requested: $18,000 CDBG funds will be used to support the funding of 2010 Bremerton Foodline agency salaries necessary to operate the Agency providing an estimated 16,778 food boxes to Bremerton are households in 2010 Recommended: $13,100 Bremerton Services Association — Chuckwagon Meals on Wheels Requested: $23,000 CDBG funds will be used toward the cost of 15,000 nutritious meals which volunteers will deliver to 140 homebound, low- income elderly persons residing in Bremerton. CDBG funds will be used only toward the meal cost. Recommended: $16,600 Catholic Community Services — Benedict House Homeless Men's Shelter Operations Requested: $25,000 CDBG funds will be applied to daily operating costs (salaries, benefits, facility upkeep, and other allowable costs) to provide housing and support services for 120 homeless men, including men with children. Recommended: $12,500 Kitsap Community Resources — Emergency and Transitional Housing Services Requested: $25,000 CDBG funds will be used to provide staff support to Housing Services Programs that serve over 585 Bremerton residents who are homeless, formerly homeless, or at risk of homelessness. Recommended: $12,500 2010 CDBG HOME PROJECT DESCRfPTIONS Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT B Kitsap Sexual Assault Center — Child Abuse Intervention Requested: $15,732 CDBG funds will be used to fund a portion of Child and Family Advocate's salary to provide advocacy and crisis intervention services for 31 children who have been sexually abused and their non - offending family members. Recommended: $7,866 Literacy Council of Kitsap — Literacy for Hispanic Families Requested: $10,000 CDBG funds will be used to support our literacy programs for 150 Hispanic students, which include family literacy, English as a Second Language, civics education, and computer literacy. Recommended: $5,000 Washington CASH — Bremerton Microcredit Initiative Requested: $10,000 CDBG funds will be used to provide up to 50 low- income individuals with comprehensive micro - business development activities designed to establish, expand or stabilize a micro or small business. Recommended: $5,000 YWCA of Kitsap County — YWCA ALIVE Legal Advocacy Requested: $13,500 CDBG funds will be used to partially support the cost of a full -time legal advocate to provide no- cost legal advocacy for up to 175 victims of domestic violence and their children. Recommended: $8,100 Kitsap Family YMCA — Childcare Scholarships Requested: $10,000 CDBG funds will be used to enable 41 new low- income and very low- income children to participate in Latchkey childcare and summer camp. Recommended: $8,353 Bremerton Boys & Girls Club — After School and Summer Programs Requested: $10,000 CDBG funds will be used to support the salaries and program expenses of the Bremerton Boys & Girls Club to provide 300 youth with quality after school and summer programs. Recommended: $0.00 City of Bremerton Parks Department — Family Playgrounds at Evergreen Park Requested: $12,500 CDBG funds will be used to provide a free summer playground program for children ages 6 -12 and free lunch service for children ages 0 -18 at Evergreen and Matan Park neighborhoods. Recommended: $0.00 RMH Services — Untreated Mentally III Requested: $20,000 CDBG funds will be used to cover operating and personnel costs for a volunteer case manager / psychiatric nurse and a part-time janitor, for agency that treats severely mentally ill clients. Recommended: $0.00 Bremerton High School Pay it Forward— Scholarships Requested: $7,500 CDBG funds will be used to provide 3 college scholarships for low- income graduates of Bremerton High School, in exchange for community service performed in Bremerton. Recommended: $0.00 2010 CDBG HOME PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT B Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority— Nollwood Youth Programs Requested: $13,887 CDBG funds will be used to support the salary and benefits of the Community Services staff person at the Nollwood public housing complex in Bremerton, in order to provide the family and youth services program. Recommended: $0.00 Salvation Army— Sally's Place Hygiene Center Requested: $36,000 CDBG funds will be used to support the salaries and benefits of the Hygiene Center manager, assistant manager, and attendant. Recommended: Application Retracted Capital Protects: Total Requested: $552,056; Projected Funding: $385,750 Bremerton Boys & Girls Club — New Teen Center Requested: $150,000 CDBG funds will be used to support the construction of a 7,000 square foot teen center on Mountain View Middle School property to provide youth with a safe and positive place to go during non - school hours. Recommended: $86,625 City of Bremerton Parks & Rec — Matan Park Improvements Requested: $80,000 CDBG funds will be used to enhance and improve Matan Park in the Anderson Cove neighborhood. Improvements will include expanding the lawn area, constructing a new playground, improving the sports courts, replacing fencing, landscaping, and ADA improvements. Recommended: $80,000 Archdiocesan Housing Authority — New Carpet for Max Hale Center Requested: $47,694 CDBG funds will be used to purchase and install new carpeting for the stairways and common areas at Max Hale Center. Max Hale provides very affordable housing for the formerly homeless as well as low income residents. Recommended: $45,000 Kitsap Community Resources — Weatherization and Minor Home Repair Requested: $100,000 CDBG funds will be used for 10 low- income Bremerton households which will receive weatherization, minor home repair, and accessibility services to save energy and improve the health and safety of their homes. Recommended: $86,625 Bremerton Foodline — Emergency Power Energy Upgrade Requested: $20,000 CDBG funds will be used to install emergency generators. Recommended: $12,500 KCCHA — Nollwood Public Housing Lighting Improvements Requested: $88,302 CDBG funds will be used to replace the aging lighting system at the Nollwood Apartments, a 48- unit public housing development. Recommended: $75,000 2010 CDBG HOME PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT B KCCHA — Nollwood Public Housing Community Room and ADA Repairs Requested: $66,060 CDBG funds will be used to make ADA and Community Room improvements at the Nollwood Apartments, a 48 -unit public housing development. Recommended: $0 HOME Projects: Total Requested: $883,000; Projected Funding: $1,054,736.40 Kitsap Community Resources — Transitional Housing Acquisition and Rehab Requested: $353,000 HOME funds will be used to acquire a duplex, location not yet identified. Funds will also pay related relocation costs under the Uniform Relocation Act. Any remaining award funds will be used for property rehabilitation. Recommended: $0 Kitsap Mental Health Services — Burwell Place Renovation Requested: $530,000 HOME funds will be used to renovate Kitsap Mental Health's group home located on Burwell Street into 8 Single Room Occupancy Units to serve 8 adults with chronic mental illness. Recommended: $530,000 2010 CDBG HOME PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: Bremerton City Council From: Phedra Elliott, CDBG /HOME Coordinator Date: October 21, 2009 Re: 2010 Funding Recommendations and Action Plan On April 15' 2009, the City Council approved the 2010 CDBG / HOME Policy Plan which outlined the funding allocation process and included CDBG rules and regulations. Applications for 2010 CDBG and HOME funding were due on July 17, 2009. Received were: • 7 CDBG Capital Applications • 15 CDBG Public Services Applications • 2 HOME Applications Applications were screened by Block Grant staff for completeness, and eligibility, and by the City Auditor for the organizations' financial compliance and capacity. One agency removed its application from competition prior to interviews. The remaining 23 successful applications were given to the Citizen Advisory Committees who reviewed them and interviewed the applicants. Based on this review process, the Citizen Advisory Committee developed the funding recommendations shown as Exhibits A and B of the proposed Resolution. Public comment has been solicited for thirty days prior to the October 21st public hearing. Any comments received prior to October 21 st will be provided to the Council. All funding approvals are contingent upon 2010 funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), reallocated funds from previous years, and program income. Because we are estimating our 2010 award amount, contingent provisions have been included in the Committees' recommendations in case there is more or less funding than anticipated. If approved, these funding recommendations will be submitted to HUD in the 2010 Annual Action Plan due November 13, 2009. No contracts will be signed until all funding is in place. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of these items please do not hesitate to contact Phedra Elliott at (360) 473 -5211 or Marie Vila at (360) 473 -5375. RECEIVED City of Bremerton OCT 1 9 2009 KITSAP Department of M October 19, 2009 �tmmunityDevelopment HEALTH SERVICES Phedra Elliott Block Grant Program Coordinator CDBG /HOME Programs City of Bremerton Community Development BOARD OF DIRECTORS 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 Tom Hyde, PhD President j Eve Willett Re: Comment Regarding 2010 CDBG /HOME Funding Recommendations President -Elect Bruce Harlow, USN Ret. Secretarv- Treasurer On behalf of the Kitsap Mental Health Services Board of Directors, our staff, and scoff Lindquist, MD, MPH the clients we serve, I would like to thank the City of Bremerton Community Immediate Past President Development Block Grant Citizen Advisory Committee for their recent Paul Dour, Sr. ! recommendation to provide $530,000 in HOME funds to renovate Burwell Peter A. Douvis House. Burwell House currently serves as a 16 bed residential and stabilization Britt Feldman Cynthia Galloway facility, but is no longer appropriate for the level of services we need to provide Patt Lent I the current participants. Existing Burwell House residents will be moving to a Jean Maclammie, RN Greg Memovich new facility now under construction, known as The Keller House, in early spring Dianne Robinson 2010. This will allow us to create eight critically needed "studio light" living Leon smith independently in the communi with anTez Manfre k RN, MN yr units for KMHS clients who are able to live inde 1� Y Y Jan Tezak, RN, MN support from KMHS. The newly renovated facility will be called "Burwell James C Tracy Place" and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2010. Emeritus: Carolyn Powers of Bremerton Community Development HOME fundin that will D e nisVelo It is the City I Y Y p g Denrnsveloni � make renovation of Burwell House possible. We are grateful for the oe recommendation to fund this much needed housing facility, and we hope you will J Exeutiv e Dimctor find the recommendation worthy of approval. 1 Sincerely, The mission of Krtsap Mental Health Services is to shape the future of j CA mental health through 1 state of the science Joe Roszak service delivery, t Executive Director community partnerships l and advocacy. Ph (360) 373 -5031 TDD (360) 478 -2715 Fax (360) 377 -0458 5455 Almira Drive NE Bremerton, WA 98311 I wwwkdsapmentalhealth.org u�rteav� On behalf of the Literacy Council of Kitsap staff and Board of Directors, we would like to extend our deep appreciation to the Citizen Advisory Committee for recommending a 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the Literacy Council's Hispanic Families Program. This grant recommendation in the amount of $5,000 will provide instructional opportunities and resources needed to ensure that our Hispanic students are able to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in the work place and improve the quality of life for their families. The City of Bremerton's continuing support is a critical element of the important service that the Literacy Council's staff and almost 200 volunteers provide to our community. We are hopeful that the City Council will approve the recommendation as presented. It would be especially welcome news during the fifth- annual Adult Literacy Week in Washington State. Olga Fedorovski Jeanie Schulze Executive Director Chair, Board of Directors DATE SUBMITTED: October 7, 2009 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON coo CITY COUNCIL .........................................//................ ............................... SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance S0T Committee Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 amending BMC Title 20 the Zoning Code. COUNCIL MEETING Date: October 21, 2009 Amendments relate to project permitting Department: DCD requirements, and general housekeeping to Presenter: Nicole Ward correct minor errors throughout the code. Phone: 360.473.5279 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a public hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Title 20 specifically: 1) BMC 20.02 Project Permitting 2) BMC 20.40 Figure B — Comprehensive Plan / Zoning Consistency 3) BMC 20.46.110 Adult Entertainment Business The purpose of these code amendments is for reorganization, clarification, and updates to incorporate changing circumstances. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Memo including a "Users Guide" which describes the amendments and Planning Commission Minutes B. Proposed Ordinance including Planning Commission Findings & Conclusions. Ala. 5o yI FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR o� COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA ❑ GENERAL BUSINESS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. So?/ to amend BMC Chapter 20.02 Project Permitting; Figure 20.40(b) Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Consistency; and Subsection 20.46. 110 Adult Entertainment Businesses. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Nicole Ward, City Planner Date: October 21, 2009 Subject Zoning Code Amendments SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a hearing on June 16, 2009 and recommends three groups of amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 (generally referred to as the "zoning code ").The amendments are as follows: 1) Updates to 20.02 Project Permitting: The City has established specific requirements for project permitting to ensure applications are reviewed in a comprehensive and timely fashion. The primary goal of these revisions is to provide the reader a more clear and precise outline of the project permitting requirements and to identify technological advances such as email as an acceptable form of communication. Many of the amendments are simply moving text from one section to another without any change, however when represented in legislative format it can be challenging to determine what is simply moving, and what is being changed. The "User's Guide" (Attachment 1) is intended to help clarify the proposed changes. 2) 20.40 Figure B Comprehensive Plan / Zoning consistency: The City recently annexed the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) and created a Comprehensive Designation of Manufacturing and Industrial Center. This new designation needs to be added to the table within the zoning code to identify the corresponding zoning designation, which is industrial. 3) 20.46.110 Adult Entertainment Business: Currently the code prohibits Adult Entertainment Businesses in community and neighborhood centers; however there is no definition of community center in the code. To clarify, staff proposes using existing defined language such as "Designated Center" to ensure there is no confusion. This amendment does not change the permitted location of such uses, it simply clarifies the definition. OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Adopt the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Zoning Code with modifications. • Deny the Planning Commission's recommend changes to the Zoning Code. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment I — Users Guide to the Amendments • Attachment 11 — Minutes from the Planning Commission 6/16/09 hearing Zonin i Code Amendments 1. Update BMC 20.02, Project Permitting in the following ways: o General housekeeping, such as capitalization, removal of duplication, and organization throughout the chapter. o Simplification of tables by removing duplicative language & errors. o Update Notice of Application requirements to include 300' neighborhood mailing requirement for Type III permits. o Add timelines for application revisions. o Add email as an acceptable notification format. o Remove publishing requirement for Notice of Decision. 2. Add the recently annexed area called SKIA to the designation table within the Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan designates it as a Manufacturing and Industrial Center; however this needs to correspond to the appropriate zoning district, which is industrial. 3. Clarify language regarding Adult Entertainment Uses. Adult entertainment uses are permitted within industrial zones, but not within Centers. The language in the code is not clear when an area is both a center and industrially zoned. Modification would ensure such uses are not permitted within a center, regardless of zoning. Attachment I USERS GUIDE TO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT This guide outlines three separate amendments each relating to a different chapter of the Bremerton Municipal Code. Each amendment section is addressed in this guide including the reasons for the proposed amendment. Actual code changes are shown in legislative markup. Code relocation is simply shown with text box explanations to help the reader. Amendments addressed in this guide include: 1. Modify Permit Processing Chapter, BMC 20.02 2. Update Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code Consistency Table, BMC 20.40(6). 3. Clam Adult Entertainment Business prohibited locations, BMC 20.46.110 This table summarizes al! ro osed changes as ollows: Code Section Proposed Chan a General Notes BMC 20.02 o Capitalize City throughout the chapter. throughout o Removed duplicative requirements. o Simplified language. Submittal o Moved to BMC 20.02.050 to follow the Reduces confusion - clarifies the Requirements Pre - Application Conference order of operations. requirements. Project Permit o Brought chart from end of chapter to Chart was duplicative and had Processing this section and substantially removed many errors. duplication from chart. o Added language from chart to text for simplicity. Pre - Application o Moved section towards beginning of Moving the section will help Conference the chapter as it is the first application organize the chapter making it anyone fills out. easier to read. o Combined language throughout the code relating to Pre - Application Conferences for readers ease. Determination of o Added a timeline for application This helps ensure projects do Completeness revisions. not remain ending for years. Notice of o Added email as acceptable notification 300' radius has always been Application type. required, however it was only o Added 300' radius mailing requirement mentioned in the Notice of for Type III projects. Hearing section. This is an error and needs to be corrected. Notice of Hearing o Re- organized for readers ease. Put Code is currently out of order project Notice requirements before and hard to follow. Appeal requirements. o Added email as acceptable notification method. Notice of Decision o Added email as acceptable notification Published notice is not method. necessary. RCW requires o Removed the requirement to publish notification to all interested the Notice of Decision. parties only — as they are the 1 Attachment I Code Section Proposed Chan a General Notes only eo le allowed to appeal. BMC 20.40 o Add Manufacturing and Industrial This is a Comprehensive Plan Figure A Center to the chart that establishes the designation that was created in corresponding zone for a 2008 and therefore must be Comprehensive Plan Designation. added t the t able. 20.46.110 Adult o Revise language to ensure adult Existing language refers to terms Entertainment entertainment is not permitted in a that are undefined in Zoning Business Center. Code. AMENDMENT 1— PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES BMC 20.02 The intent of these revisions is to generally clam the requirements, organize the chapters in a user friendly format, and to generally update the chapter. 20.02.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT. (a) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted Comprehensive Plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. This chapter establishes how the City of Bremerton will process applications for project permits. (b) These procedures provide for an effective processing and review of permits consistent with Chapter 36.70B RCW. This chapter is applied in conjunction with Chapter 2.13 BMC (Administrative Hearing Examiner); Chapter 17.04 BMC (City Building Code); Chapter 20.04 BMC (State Environmental Policy Act); Chapter 20.12 BMC (Short Subdivisions and Plats); BMC Title 20, Division III; the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program; Chapter 20.14 BMC (Critical Areas); and other applicable codes making reference to this chapter. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 20.02.020 DEFINITIONS. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. "City" means the City of Bremerton. "Closed- record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record on a project permit application following an open- record hearing with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed. "Days" means calendar days. "Department" means Department of Community Development. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Community Development of the City of Bremerton or his/her designee. "Hearing body" means the City Council, Hearing Examiner or any other body designated by the City Council to preside over an open- record hearing or closed - record appeal. "Hearing examiner" means the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC. "Open- record appeal hearing" means an open- record hearing held on an appeal when Capitalized "City" Throughout the Chapter Attachment I no open- record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit application. "Open- record hearing" means a hearing that creates the eCity's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the eCity by ordinance or resolution. An open- record hearing held prior to the Ceity's decision shall be known as an "open- record predecision hearing." "Parties of record" means: (1) The applicant; (2) The property tax payer as identified by the records available from the Kitsap County Assessor's Office; (3) Any person who testified at the open- record public hearing on the application; and/or (4) Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open- record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or mechanically produced form letters). "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the Ceity of Bremerton for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, site development permits, land use preparation permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, development plan review, site - specific rezones authorized by the Comprehensive Plan, but excluding adoption or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, zoning of newly annexed land, area -wide rezones, and zoning map amendments except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of persons to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the Ceity's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review meeting, a special committee meeting, such as the short subdivision committee, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open- record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the Ceity's project permit application file. "SEPA" means the State Environmental Policy Act and includes the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, Chapter 197 -11 WAC and Chapter 20.04 BMC. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 20.02.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) General Exemptions. The following permits or approvals are exempt from the procedures set forth in this chapter: (1) Landmark designations; (2) Street vacations; (3) Right -of -way /street use permits; (4) Permits or approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities; (5) Permits or approvals involving the location or development of essential public facilities or utilities; 3 Attachment I (6) Project permits not listed in this chapter which are categorically exempt from SEPA; (7) Legislative actions such as the adoption of or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, subarea plans, area -wide map amendments, and development regulations. (b) Applicable Procedures. The Director shall determine the proper procedure for the processing of each project permit application pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Disputes shall be resolved in favor of the higher category. Type I is considered the lowest and Type IV is the highest. (c) Standard Consistency. The City reviews proposals for consistency to applicable development regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. This determination includes consideration of the following: (1) The type of land use permitted, including uses that may be permitted under certain circumstances, provided the criteria for their approval is satisfied; (2) The density of development allowed such as units per acre or other measures of density; (3) Availability and adequacy of infrastructure, which includes public facilities and services identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and (4) Characteristics of the development such as development design standards. in affaat OR the date an applieeAi is vess-ed will be the stafidaw Of Feview. Removed as subject is addressed (edd) Conflict with Other Regulations. When any in subsection .060 entitled Vesting. provisions of this chapter conflict with provisions of other City regulations, ordinances or resolutions, the more restrictive shall apply. (€e) Severability. If any part or provision of this chapter or the application of these regulations to any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be confined in its operations to the part, provision, or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall be rendered and it shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations or the application of them to other persons or circumstances. (g_0 General Notice Requirements. The available records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office shall be used to determine the property tax payer of record. All notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to provide the public notice as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of a decision on a permit. (l) Optional Public Notice. In addition to required public notice, the City may provide notice to other individuals or organizations interested or possibly affected by the proposal. Failure to provide optional public notice shall not be grounds for invalidation of a decision on a permit. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 20.02.040 PROJECT PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES. Project permit applications are categorized as Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV project permits. Permit processing procedures may include determination of completeness, notice of application, notice of public hearing and notice of decision. 4 Attachment I Applicable procedures for the processing of permits are pursuant to the following provisions: (a) Type I Project Permits. These are administrative decisions by the Director who may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application. They include permits categorically exempt from SEPA review or that have had SEPA review completed in connection with another application or permit. Type I project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040. Removed charts at end of Examples of Tyne I permits include; chapter. Added language administrative code interpretation, from charts here. building /construction/demolition permits (SEPA Exempt), final subdivisions, permit revocations etc. (b) Type II Project Permit. These are administrative decisions by the Director with limited public notice. The Director has the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application. Type II project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040, following this ehapw . Examples of Type II permits include, administrative conditional use permits, preliminary plat/binding site plan, site plan review (Requiring SEPA), building / construction/demolition permits (Requiring SEPA), stand alone nonproiect SEPA, etc. (c) Type III Project Permit. These are Hearing Examiner decisions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Type III project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040, Exam21 es of Tvpe III permits include, Non - administrative conditional use permit, preliminary formal subdivision, variance, etc. (d) Type IV Project Permit. These are decisions by the City Council. after. a elesed- Feeex#- hearing. The City Council may approve, conditionally approve, modify and approve or deny the application. Type IV project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040 Examples of Type IV permits include, site specific re -zone, final formal subdivision, development agreement, vacation of subdivision, etc fel}ev'fig -tkis eh"ter- (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) (e) Table 040 Permit Processing Procedures Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of Com leteness A lication Hearing Decision • TyggI Permit No No No No • Tyge II Permit Yea Yes No Yes • Type III Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes • Ty2e IV Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes • Develo ment Agleement No No Yes Yes • Final Subdivision No No No N • Site S ecific Rezone Yes Yes Yes Yes • Stand Alone Non - Proiect No No No No SEPA The hearings examiner holds an open record hearing for Preliminary anoroval. The City Council makes a final decision at a public meeting; a second hearing is not required. 5 Attachment I the Hearings Examiner holds an open record hearing The City Council holds a closed record hearing formal approval. 20.02.N"50 PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE. All text in the dashed box has (a) Purpose. The purpose of the pre - application moved to this location. It was conference is to acquaint the applicant with the review previously .080. Changes to procedures and applicable Bremerton Municipal Code the actual text are shown in provisions to the proposal. Type II, III and IV hermits require a legislative markup. pre- application conference prior to submittine an application Anyone choosing - the consolidated permit process set forth in 4--This is not new text, only BMC 20.02.060 also requires a pre- submittal conference Only moved from subsection 050 to one (1) meeting is required for all project permit applications follow the permit process order. related to the same project action. (b) Waiver. The Director may waive the requirement for a pre application conference when a proposal is determined not to be of a size and complexity to require a ; detailed analysis. (c) Submission. Pre_application conferences may be held at any time before an application is submitted. A completed form and related information in sufficient number ; of copies as determined by the Director are required. The information does not need to meet the submission requirement set forth in BMC 4a- .05420.02.060 (d) Timeline. The City shall hold the pre = application conference within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a completed request, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of this time in writing. (e) Nonbinding. The pre application conference is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues and the discussions shall not be binding or prohibit the enforcement of applicable laws. Failure to provide all pertinent information may prevent ; the eCity from identifying all of the issues or providing the most effective pre-application conference. (f) Lapse of Time. If a time lapse of more than one (1) year occurs between a pre_ application conference and the submission for permits, or if the Director determines the scope of the project has changed significantly from the pre - application conference, a new conference may be required. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20.02.060 -060 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. Submitted. Anyone eheesing the eeasqlidat04 This language has moved to Pre - Application 20.02.970 Conference Requirements above. (b) Application Contents. An application submitted to the department shall be ea in a manner determined by the Director. Unless specified otherwise, an application shall at least include the following: (1) A completed application form; (2) A legal description of the property and associated tax account number; (3) A vicinity map showing the location of the property including surrounding major streets, shorelines and other reference points; 6 Attachment I I (4) A site plan appli (5) When required, mailing labels containing the names and addresses of all owners of record of parcels within the notification radius; ARA14ant 9A the applioatiam, (-7f) When required, SEPA checklist and/or This is duplicative; the application other environmental documentation; requires name, address, phone, etc. (8Z) Additional information required by the Director to support a decision on the application(s); (4D The application fee(s) for the permit(s) requested as set forth in Chapter 3.01 BMC or by other applicable rule or regulation. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 1 20.02.060. O�VESTING. A project permit application shall vest in the land use regulations in effect on the land at the time of submission of a completed project permit application as defined herein and all application fees are paid. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 1 20.02.07080 OPTIONAL CONSOLIDATED PERMITTING PROCESS. (a) An application which involves two (2) or more permits or procedures may have the processes consolidated under the highest project permit classification and procedures. The applicant shall request if they want their permit processes consolidated or if they want each permit processed individually. (b) If a project involving two (2) or more permits has the permits processed individually, the highest project permit classification and procedures shall be finalized before subsequent permits can be issued. The Director may waive this requirement for permits not dependent on the higher classification of permit for their justification or implementation. (c) If applicable a A single open- record hearing and no more than one closed- record appeal shall be provided on a consolidated review process. The consolidated process may combine an open- record hearing on one or more permits with an open- record appeal hearing on the other permits. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) • Previous location of Pre Application Conference — moved up in code to follow order of application process. Pre Application is the first step, thus its submittal requirements should be before other applications. • Previous Location of Design Review Applications —Moved down in code as it is required in conjunction with a building permit. 20.02.090 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS. When review procedures require a determination of completeness, the following shall apply: (a) Determination. Within twenty -eight (28) days of accepting the application, the department shall provide a written determination to the applicant, stating that: 7 Attachment I (1) The application is complete; or (2) The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. To the extent known, the City shall identify other agencies of local, state or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application. (b) Failure to Notify. Failure to provide a written determination within the required time shall automatically deem the application complete. (c) Processing. A complete application meets the submission requirements set forth in BMC 20.02 : A59060(b) and is sufficient for continued processing. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. Should additional information be requested, the anplicant shall have ninety (90) days from Adding a timeline for revisions the date notified to submit the requested materials. Should ensures applications are not the materials not be submitted within the time limits the pending for years. application shall lapse. (d) Incomplete Application. An incomplete application shall have ninety (90) days from the date of the written determination in subsection (a)(2) of this section for the necessary information to be submitted. If the applicant either refuses in writing or does not submit the required information within the time limits, the application shall lapse. (e) Review of Additional Information. When additional information for an incomplete application is received, the City shall notify the applicant within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the additional information whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary. (f) Review Timeline. Following the date an application is determined complete, the date shall be noted and the one hundred twenty (120) day official review period to render a decision shall begin. (Ord. 4977 §3, 2006; Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 20.02.100 NOTICE OF APPLICATION. When review procedures require a notice of application, the following shall apply: (a) Timeline. The notice shall be provided within fourteen (14) days after the determination of completeness is issued. (b) Content. The notice of application shall include the following: (1) The file number assigned; (2) The date of application, date of the notice of completeness, and the date of the notice of application; (3) A description of the proposed project action and a list of permits included with the application and, if applicable, a list of requested studies; (4) Identification of known permits not included with the application; (5) Identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposal; (6) The location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (7) A statement of the public comment period and which shall not be less than fourteen (14) or more than thirty (30) days; 8 Attachment I (8) A statement of the rights of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision and any appeal rights; (9) Any other information determined appropriate by the eCity. (c) Legal Notice. Notice shall be provided in the Ldde email as acceptable form following manner as applicable: ficat ion (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class or higher mail to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Affected city departments; (iii) State, federal and local agencies with jurisdiction; and (iv) For Tyne III Permits Mailed notice shall also be sent to all property owners of real property ( as shown by the records of the Kitsav County Assessor's Office) within three hundred This is not new, but was (300) feet of the subiect property. Where any nortion of not clearly established. a property abutting the subiect property is owned controlled, or under the option of purchase by the applicant all property owners within a three- hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be- notified. UAny person who requests such notice in writing to the Department. (2) Posting of the Property. Notice shall be posted according to the following: (i) At least one (1) location on or adjacent to the subject property and that shall be clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area; (ii) The Director shall determine the specifications to the construction and installation of the notice boards. (3) Publishing Notice. A published notice in the City's official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content shall include the following: (i) Project location; (ii) Project description; (iii) Type of permit(s) required; (iv) Comment period and dates; (v) Location where the complete application may be viewed. (d) Integration of Notices. The City will integrate the notice of application with SEPA review whenever possible. Notification for a notice of application should be combined with the notification for threshold determination and the scoping for a determination of significance whenever possible. (e) Issuance of Decisions. Except for a threshold determination, the City may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a permit until the expiration of the public comment period. (0 Public Comments. Comments shall be as specific as possible. Comments shall be received by the last day of the comment period specified in the notice. If no comments are received by the date specified in the notice from an affected eCity 4Department or agency with jurisdiction, which notification was sent to, then it is presumed that the department or agency has no comments. (Ord. 4938 § 3 (part), 2005) 9 Attachment I 20.02.110 NOTICE OF HEARING. When review procedures require a notice of hearing, the following shall apply: (a) Notice Integration. A notice of hearing is required for public hearings. A notice of hearing may be integrated with the notice of application. (b) Notice Content. A written notice of hearing shall contain the following information: (1) The name of the applicant or designated contact; (2) A description of the affected property (not including any legal description); (3) Project summary/description of each project permit application; (4) The application/project file number; (5) The date, time and place of the hearing; (6) A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony; (7) A statement where information may be examined or obtained and the staff contact and phone number; (8) A statement how written testimony or comments may be submitted; (9) The SEPA threshold determination along with any appropriate statement regarding any shared or divided lead agency status and phased review, and stating the end of any final comment period; (10) The deadline (date, time and place) for submitting a SEPA appeal; (11) A statement regarding any administrative appeal process including SEPA -- ----- ADRes' ---------------------------------------- - (dcc)Project Permit Notification. Notification for All text in the dashed box has been a hearing on a project permit shall be provided in the re- organized. Actual text changes are following manner as applicable: shown in legislative markup. Re- (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, organization is to follow application first class mail or higher to the following: order of operations. (i) The applicant; (ii) All property owners of real property (as shown by the records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office) within three hundred (300) feet of the subject propert y; Where any portion of a property abutting the subject property is owned. controlled, or under the option of purchase by the applicant all property owners within a three - hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified. and (iii) Any person providing a written request to the Department. , Not deleted, rather combined with ii above. Retified by Mail 88 (2) Preliminary Plat. When adjacent to the right -of -way of a state highway, or within two (2) miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport, mailed notice shall be given to the Secretary of Transportation, who has fifteen (15) days to respond. ; (3) Posting of the Property. The notice shall be posted in the same manner and location(s) as the notice of application set forth in BMC 20.02. 1 00(c)(2). (4) Publishing Notice. A published legal notice in the City's official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content of the published notice shall include the following information: (i) Project location; ; (ii) Project description; ; (iii) Type of permit(s) required; ; (iv) Comment period and dates; ; (v) Location where the complete application may be viewed. �I (e ) Notice Deadlines. Notice shall be given at least ten (10) days before the hearing date except: (1) Shoreline permits pursuant to WAC 173 -27- 110(3) shall be given at least fifteen (15) days. (2) An integrated notice of hearing and notice of application shall be given at least fifteen (15) days. (3) An integrated notice of hearing and notice of a SEPA threshold determination shall be given at least fifteen (15) days. (ef) Continuation of Hearing. Continued hearings do not require additional notices of hearing. , I (fe) Appeal Notification. Notification for a hearing on an open- record or closed- record appeal shall be provided in the following manner: ; (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class mail or higher to the following: ; (i) The applicant/appellant; (ii) Parties of record; (iii) Affected agencies; (iv) Parties requesting notice; and ; (v) Other persons whom the department believes may be affected by the action. ; (g) Additional Procedures. In addition to the procedures contained in this chapter, the Department may develop general procedures for notification, including mailing packets and the format of the notice and an affidavit of posting/mailing form to be filled ; out by the party doing notice. (Ord. 4938 § 3 (part), 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o Previous location of text directly above — The section is reorganized to go in correct order of operation. Existing code has appeal notification requirements listed before project permit notification. 20.02.120 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. A hearing on a project permit application may be combined with any other hearing on the action held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency pursuant to RC 36.7013.110 as currently enacted or hereinafter amended. (Ord. 4938 § 3 (part), 2005) 11 Attachment I 20.02.130 NOTICE OF DECISION. The Director, the Hearing Examiner or the City Council issues a decision at the conclusion of applicable project permit review. The notice of decision may be included as part of the decision or project permit. (a) The eCity shall provide a notice of decision. The notice shall include a statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA and the procedures for appeal if a consolidated notice was not given under BMC 20.02.110(4e)(3). (b) Notification. Notification shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class mail or higher to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision in writing to the Department, or who submitted substantive comments on the application; and (iii) Kitsap County Assessor's Office. Decision notice should only be city's effisial newspaper. efganer-al sent to parties of record, as they are the only ones who can appeal. noose. (c) Notice Contents. The notice may include a copy of the report of decision on the project permit application; and shall include, when available, the SEPA threshold determination, the permit decision, the conditions of approval or where they may be viewed by the public, and the general procedures and time limits to file an appeal. (d) Change of Valuation. The notice shall state that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (e) Timelines. The notice shall be issued within one hundred twenty (120) days after the eCity notifies the applicant that the application is complete pursuant to BMC 20.02.090, except as follows: (1) The Director makes written findings that a specified amount of additional time is needed for processing the application; or (2) A permit or approval involving the location or development of important public facilities or utilities, or related to the use of public areas or facilities, for public purposes may be excluded from the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit upon a determination of the Director that special circumstances warrant a longer process. (f) Extension of Timelines. If the eCity is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the parties of record. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits were not met, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. (g) Timeline Exclusion. The one hundred twenty (120) day time limit shall exclude any of the following: 12 Attachment I (1) Any period an applicant takes to provide additional information, perform studies or provide corrected plans requested by the City. (2) Any period where the City determines that submitted information is insufficient or incorrect, and has requested the applicant provide the necessary information. (3) Any period an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared including scoping and preparing the draft and final EIS. (4) Any period for administrative appeals and any period for reconsideration of decisions of the Hearing Examiner made on project permit applications. The period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed: (i) Ninety (90) days for an open- record appeal hearing; or (ii) Sixty (60) days for a closed- record appeal. (iii) The parties may agree to extend these periods. (5) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City. (6) All excluded periods are calculated from the date the eCity notifies the applicant to when the information satisfies the City's requirement. (7) When the applicant submits the requested information, the City shall have fourteen (14) days to determine if it is satisfactory. If the information is not satisfactory, but the City fails to notify the applicant within the time limit, the information shall be deemed satisfactory. (8) The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application: (i) Requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or a development regulation; or (ii) Requires approval of the location of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or (iii) Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete. (h) Liability. The eCity is not liable for damages due to the eCity's failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. (Ord. 4938 § 3 (part), 2005) 20.02.140 APPEALS. (a) General. (1) Those land use and development decisions that are subject to appeal shall become final unless an appeal is filed within the designated time to file an appeal. (2) The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision` was not supported by substantial evidence. (3) Appeal of Type I or Type I1 project permit final decisions shall be to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the notice of decision. A decision involving a SEPA determination of nonsignificance which required public comments shall have the appeal period extended an additional seven (7) days. (4) Administrative appeal of a SEPA threshold determination is to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.04 BMC and subsection (a)(3) of this section. 13 Attachment I (5) Appeal of Type III or Type IV project permit final decisions shall be to Kitsap County Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeals shall be tiled within twenty -one (21) days following the issuance of the notice of decision. (6) Final decision relating to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program may be appealed as follows: (i) Director decisions and Type II shoreline permits may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section or may be appealed directly to the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.180. (ii) Hearing Examiner decisions may be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board by filing a petition for review within twenty -one (2 1) days of the date of filing pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(6). (b) Standing to Appeal. Only parties of record with standing may initiate an appeal. Standing constitutes the following: (1) For Type I project permits, only the applicant has standing. (2) For project permits not Type I, the following have standing: (i) Applicant; (ii) Anyone who participates in the public hearing; or (iii) Anyone who submits written comments in response to a legal notice within the required time limits. (c) Filing an Appeal. Administrative appeals are filed by submitting a form provided by the Department. The appeal must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period. Appeals may be mailed, faxed or delivered to the Department. (d) Timing of Decisions. (1) An open- record appeal shall be decided within ninety (90) days from the date the complete appeal was filed. (2) Should an occasion arise that would require a closed- record appeal hearing, such an appeal shall be decided within sixty (60) days. (e) Computation of Time. For purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW 1. 16.050 or by the City's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day. (f) Content of Appeal. An administrative appeal shall not be accepted unless it is written, accompanied by the required appeal fee, and contains at least the following information: (1) Appellant's name, address and phone number; (2) Appellant's statement describing his or her standing, as a party of record, to appeal; (3) Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; (4) Statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; (5) Statement of the relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and (6) A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. (g) Effect. The timely filing of an administrative appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until the appeal is either decided or withdrawn. 14 i Attachment I (h) Notice of Appeal. The Director shall provide public notice of the appeal as provided in BMC 20.02.110(c). (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) This section is not changed, just I moved from above to follow the 20.02.0&5-150 REVIEW. Buildings that are proposed for construction in areas order of permit processing. having adopted design guidelines are subject to review and ; recommendation by the Design Review Board (Board). For any development activity that requires Board review, the applicant must comply with the provisions of this section before a building permit can be approved, as follows: (a) Public Meetings. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public but are not subject to the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW. (b) Conceptual Design Conference. Before submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall attend a conceptual design conference with the Board. The conference will be scheduled by the Director to occur within thirty (30) days of written request by the applicant. The purpose of this conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the project concept with the Board in the early stages of the project development and: (1) To review preliminary sketches of the design proposal presented by the applicant; (2) To discuss how the design guidelines pertain to the proposed development; (3) For the Design Review Board to designate which design guidelines apply to ; the proposed development based primarily on the location and nature of the proposed development; and (4) Other application materials the applicant will need to submit with the design review application. (c) Application. Following the conceptual design conference, the applicant may then submit a building permit application to the Department. The application shall include all documents and exhibits required for the application, as well as all materials required as a result of the conceptual design conference. (d) Public Notice. On determination of a complete application for a building permit requiring design review, the Director shall schedule a design response conference with the Board to occur within sixty (60) calendar days. The Director shall provide public notice of the design response conference per the requirements of BMC 20.02.100. ° (e) Design Response Conference. The design response stage allows the Board to review the design plans and provide direction to the applicant on issues to be resolved for final approval. The applicant shall present the proposed project and demonstrate its consistency with the design guidelines as discussed in the conceptual design conference to the Board. The Board will consider the information presented and make a formal recommendation to the Director for project approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The Board may continue the conference if necessary to gather additional information necessary for its recommendation. If the conference is continued to a specific date, no further public notice is required; otherwise notice of continuance shall be mailed to all parties participating in the design response conference. 15 ' (f) Approval. Approval of a building permit that is subject to Board review is a Type 11 Director decision; however, the Board's recommendation shall hold substantial weight. After reviewing the Board recommendation, the Director may grant, deny or conditionally approve an application for the proposed development. Any deviation from the Board's recommendation shall be documented in the Director's findings and ; conclusions. The decision of the Director may be appealed per the provisions of BMC 20.02.140. (Ord. 4981 §2, 2006) .- --- - - - - - -- r --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 20.02.439.160 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES. (a) The City may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction or outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement sets forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. (b) A determination of completeness, notice of hearing and a notice of decision are required pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The one hundred twenty (120) day time limit for the notice of decision shall not apply to a development agreement. (c) When a request for a development agreement is consolidated with a Type III or IV project permit, the public hearing shall be consolidated with the open- record hearing on the permit before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement and approval of the project permit shall be conditioned on City Council approval of the development permit. (d) The City Council may approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution only. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) 1 20.02.4170 PLANNED ACTIONS. A planned action is defined in WAC 197 -11 -164 as one or more types of project action that has had significant environmental impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, subarea plan, fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project. (a) A project action addressed in a planned action does not require an environmental checklist or threshold determination, but may require the checklist for review to mitigate environmental impacts through the site plan review process. (b) To qualify, a project action shall: (1) Be subsequent to or implementing projects in a Comprehensive Plan, subarea plan, fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project; (2) Be located within the City's adopted urban growth areas; (3) Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (4) Not be an essential public facility, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200. (c) The City Council shall designate and approve by ordinance a planned action. The ordinance: (1) Shall describe the type(s) of project action being designated as a planned action; 16 Attachment I (2) Shall describe how the planned action meets the criteria in subsection (b) of this section, including specific references to the EIS; (3) Shall include findings that the environmental impacts have been identified and adequately addressed in the EIS, subject to project review under WAC 197 -11- 172; (4) Should identify any specific mitigation measures other than applicable development regulations that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as a planned action. (d) The planned action may be limited to certain types of development, to specific geographical areas of the City, and/or a time period identified in the EIS, plan, ordinance or resolution. (e) Review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects. Review of the project shall include: (1) Verification that it meets the description and implements any applicable conditions or mitigation measures identified in the designating ordinance or resolution; (2) Verification that the proposed significant adverse environmental impacts of the project have been adequately addressed in the EIS. (f) Nothing in this section limits the City from using applicable law to place conditions on the project in order to mitigate nonsignificant impacts through normal project review and permitting processes. (Ord. 4938 §3 (part), 2005) Deleted Charts as they are duplicative and inaccurate. Information in chart I Table 040 Projeet PeFmit PFeeessiag has been moved to subsection 040 RpeeedePes I with revised smaller chart. _ then Petermonat a e Nefies l e6es Tie 0; Completeness of Hearing e€Peeisiee ldmankWat:40e 04 NO die die No I ( � Ai+ng- ar+d -e4keIF *00 GleeAng less I (4) (2) &GF06 Of feF04 No I (ememp! fFeF -SEPA) No (exetFl�t €FeFr PA) �Je die �Je �e PatiOR 17 Attachment I 6andsselping-ef (� NO NO No No P E ae appFaVed NO No NO NO *iR8FY PIRM (+y ae- ePPFeVed No No No No eOI�' P69 I (-i3� die die �e �1e I Neesea€eese eeee Type 1 @Fffiit OF �atiepa I aPPFevaI FBVBAA9 I � sige- per�i� eve �e �e �e I W4 silS -Pia v e ire Womiss MAdiri F-Itien -e€ ( f� effi e I E�H lriR&i binding skoj4m INO No I NO I NO applisat+e4l- I I -ApplieeiienTy" 1) 0 $ @FM * RR *o O-R O N g io es 0 NoNee 0 Nefies e COMP App+estieo MORFIN DSeisi@R I (94 jRF--liMiR&F Sit@ P IM *06 I P IRMA 10 NO I �eq rtes yes e (� � NORR e �e 18 Attachment I 1:914'awat all I fe Abe die �fe I (-� P ISH Xes des ate des I c� P @FMil *05 �� I *so I Wat OF SWOOR EISYBIBPRI *% *09 Building and wher. e-e-AR-M-W A45 4 *% w@W) ((4-4.) *0& I c-4* NO TV ME -11-1- HEMMING EXAMINER DECISIONS I Applie Determinefi— NAt Noties Noties of Ty" a€C of Hearing e€ Beeisiea IN4ajeF PUP *09 *09 RMARdwang I� N 4 aj e F i Ho Il e-Al d- eIR (-3� pFalifninaF *09 *00 I (4) P li s *09 Icy �.�� I �� *08 IA14ditiARA, *4* *es *09 I c9 *06 448 Type I II POFFNit TV IRE Pr QT* C011=11 a GISIONS I� I 19 Attachment I Applie ermine$ No6 ee Net<ies N64 of dye of complesenew fit man et 1301pisiee (44 Rolle" feFSite- ces Xes aces area I (3� � l�s 1s4e lsle 1ue I (3� aces die ate �a I (4) area *es ales �I(•es tha Gity GOURail AMENDMENT 2 - UPDATE TO CONSISTENCY CHART BMC 20.40(B) Amend Figure 20.40(6) entitled Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Consistency to include the South Kitsap Industrial Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Manufacturing and Industrial Center. The chart in the Zoning Code needs to be amended to include this designation. Amended text is as follows: Figure 20.40(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CONSISTENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ZONING DESIGNATION DISTRICTS Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (R -10) Open Space (OS) Core Centers Supporting Residential (CCSR) City Core Residential (CCR) Neighborhood Centers (NC) Low Density Residential (R -10) Neighborhood Center Core (NCC) District Centers (DC) Low Density Residential (R -10) District Center Core (DCC) Employment Center (EC) Employment Center (EC) Master Development (MD) Institutional (INST) Low Density Residential (R -10) Downtown Regional Center (DRC) Commercial Corridor (CC) Business Core (BC) Downtown Core (DC) Downtown Waterfront (DW) 20 Attachment I Multiple Residential (MR) Neighborhood Business (NB) Limited Commercial (LC) Low Density Residential (R -10) Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) Industrial (1) Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Corridor (CC) Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) (WWRC) Freeway Corridor (FC) Freeway Corridor (FC) Neighborhood Business (NB) Neighborhood Business (NB) Limited Commercial (LC) Limited Commercial (LC) Industrial (I) Industrial (1) Industrial Park (IP) Industrial Park (IP) Marine Industrial (MI) Marine Industrial (MI) Higher Education (HE) Institutional (WST) Low Density Residential (R -10) Public Sector Redevelopment Site (PSRS) Master Development (MD) Institutional (INST) Transportation, Utilities and Public Facilities Industrial Park (IP) (TUPF) City Utility Lands (CUL) City Utility Lands (CUL) City Utility Lands (CUL) Watershed Lands (WS) Watershed Lands (WS) Reserve Center (RC) (Overlay) Per the implementing zones of the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation Homeport - PSNS PSNS Industrial Support - PSNS AMENDMENT 3 - ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES BMC 20.46.110 Clam the permitted locations for adult entertainment businesses. The code prohibits such facilities within 500' of any community or neighborhood center. The zoning code however does not define a community or neighborhood center, leaving the prohibition vague. Staff proposes the following modification: 20.46.110 Adult Entertainment Business This section regulates the location of adult entertainment businesses. The purpose of these regulations is to reduce conflicts between adult entertainment businesses and other land uses. The intent is to protect the City from the blighting impacts of concentrations of adult entertainment businesses while assuring the full enjoyment of all the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the general public. (a) Location of Adult Entertainment Businesses. 21 Attachment I (1) Adult entertainment businesses as defined in subsection (c) of this section are prohibited within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius of five hundred (500) feet from the following specified uses or zones: (i) Any zone in which residential use is listed as a principal use. (ii) Any public or private school. (iii) Any day care facility as defined in BMC 20.42.040 (iv) Any worship, religious, or church facility as defined in BMC 20.42.040 (v) Any public park. I (vi) Any sommonity er. aeighbeF center designated within the Comprehensive Plan (vii) Any public library. 22 Attachment If Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 16, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wheeler at 5:30 p.m. 11. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Iloell. Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, and Chairman Wheeler. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staft). 111. Approval of Agenda Chairman Wheeler introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Hoell and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the agenda as presented. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on May 19, 2009 were presented for approval by Chairman Whecler. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2009 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Abstain; Commissioner 1-loell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Abstain; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Chairman Wheeler: Yes. The motion carried. VI. Public Meeting A. Call To'l'he Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any comments from citizens. Sccing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Public Hearing — Zoning Code Amendment To BMC 20.02 (Project Permitting), BNIC 20.30 (Figure B Comprehensive Plan), and BMC 20.46 (Adult Entertainment Business): Nicole Ward, City Planner, gave a presentation on the proposed zoning code amendments. Using a PowerPoint presentation, she re%.iewed the different typesllevels of permits (Type I - 1'ype IV) and their requirements. She explained the approval steps for each and the recommended changes to the code to simplify the permit process. She also explained the remaining two amendments: to add "Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) to the chart Planning Commission Mc a ing .tune 16. 2'009 Page I of 3 Attachment 11 in BMC 20.10 (b), Consistency Chart; and to clarify that Adult Tntertainment Business is not allowed in any center designated within the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Hoell asked if "interested parties" and "parties of record" were the same thing. Nicole said they were. Commissioner Cockburn asked for clarification on where Adult Business Entertainment is allowed. Nicole explained that Adult Business Entertainment is allowed in the Freeway Commercial Lone and the Industrial Lone. The purpose for the change in language regarding centers is due to the annexation of the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) which is zoned Industrial but is also a center. Commissioner Kosusko noted that the numbering sequence on page 3 of the User Guide (Attachment 1) needed to be revised to reflect the deletion of subsection ­d". Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend that City Council adopt the amendments to BMC Chapter 20.02, Project Permiuink, Figure 20.40(b), Comprehensive PlanlZoning Consistency, and subsection 20.46.110, Adult Entertainment Businesses as detailed in Attachment I, based on the Findings and Conclusions presented in Attachment II. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner I loell: Yes, Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Strcissguth: Yes; Chairman Wheeler: Yes. The motion carried. Chairman Wheeler closed the Public Meeting. Vi. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: None. B. Director's Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, reported on several items: The citizen - approved Manette Sub -Area Plan had been adopted by City Council with instructions to staff to revisit three items in the sub -area plan: I ) The bridge landing and street configuration for the new Manette Bridge as soon as the location has been determined; 2) Open space; and 3) Review the residential transition area for code provisions. ° Negotiating a contract with the Dcpartjnent of Ecology for finding to update the Shoreline Master Program. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for an outside consultant will he posted. An RFP will also be posted for consultants to work on the SKIA Sub -Area Plan. It is hoped that a planned action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be included with the sub -area plan so potential developers won't have to conduct their own environmental study for each permit. Planning Coinniission Meeting June 16, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Attachment If Staff is researching ways to engage more citizens with the Planning Commission and community participation. Other suggestions for increasing community involvement were reinstating the liaison role of the Vice - Chairman between the Planning Commission and City Council, and to incorporate public outreach meetings with regular Planning Commission meetings. Staff is beginning to compile the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket. The Stormwater Master Plan presented at the March Planning Commission meeting will be one of the major items on the docket. Other water and sewer plans and the Reserve Center on Kitsap Way will be included as well. If there are no agenda items in July, staff suggests cancelling that meeting. C. Old Business: None. U. New Business; None. V11. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2009. Respa ully submitted by: V 14 txe� nrea 1, , er, Executive Secretary Approved by: ✓ W Grog W. Icr, Chairman Pl anning Conrmission .Meeting .tune 16, 2009 Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 50q AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, making amendments to the zoning code in Chapter 20.02 Project Permitting, Figure 20.40(a) Zoning ` Designations, and Section 20.46.110 Adult Entertainment Business. Amendments include general language modification to clarify requirements for project permitting, allow email as a standard notification method, and to generally clarify code requirements. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4950 on November 30, 2005 establishing a new Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the new Zoning Code the need for modification has been identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020 (d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and to be consistent with other City, State, and Federal codes, regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, The State Growth Management Act, and other city, state, and federal codes regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to determine the appropriate approach for the amendments; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2009 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period and the City received conformation on June 2, 2009 that the notice was received; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2009 the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the amendments for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2009 a SEPA DNS was issued for the proposed action with an administrative appeal deadline of June 29, 2009 and no appeals were filed; and 1 Zoning Code Amendment WHEREAS, on October 10, 2009 the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009 the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered all testimony prior to their decision. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein. SECTIONZ Section 20.02 in the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Project Permitting" is hereby amended as follows: 20.02.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT. (a) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted Comprehensive Plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. This chapter establishes how the City of Bremerton will process applications for project permits. (b) These procedures provide for an effective processing and review of permits consistent with Chapter 36.70B RCW. This chapter is applied in conjunction with Chapter 2.13 BMC (Administrative Hearing Examiner); Chapter 17.04 BMC (City Building Code); Chapter 20.04 BMC (State Environmental Policy Act); Chapter 20.12 BMC (Short Subdivisions and Plats); BMC Title 20, Division III; the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program; Chapter 20.14 BMC (Critical Areas); and other applicable codes making reference to this chapter. 20.02.020 DEFINITIONS. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. "City" means the City of Bremerton. "Closed- record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record on a project permit application following an open - record hearing with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed. "Days" means calendar days. "Department" means Department of Community Development. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Community Development of the City of Bremerton or his/her designee. "Hearing body" means the City Council, Hearing Examiner or any other body designated by the City Council to preside over an open- record hearing or closed - record appeal. "Hearing examiner" means the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC. "Open- record appeal hearing" means an open- record hearing held on an appeal when no open - record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit application. "Open- record hearing" means a hearing that creates the Ceity's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the Ceity by ordinance 2 Zoning, Code Amendment or resolution. An open- record hearing held prior to the Ceity's decision shall be known as an "open- record predecision hearing." "Parties of record" means: (1) The applicant; (2) The property tax payer as identified by the records available from the Kitsap County Assessor's Office; (3) Any person who testified at the open- record public hearing on the application; and/or (4) Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open- record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or mechanically produced form letters). "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the Ceity of Bremerton for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, site development permits, land use preparation permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, development plan review, site - specific rezones authorized by the Comprehensive Plan, but excluding adoption or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, zoning of newly annexed land, area -wide rezones, and zoning map amendments except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of persons to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the Ceity's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review meeting, a special committee meeting, such as the short subdivision committee, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open - record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the Ceity's project permit application file. "SEPA" means the State Environmental Policy Act and includes the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, Chapter 197 -11 WAC and Chapter 20.04 BMC. 20.02.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) General Exemptions. The following permits or approvals are exempt from the procedures set forth in this chapter: (1) Landmark designations; (2) Street vacations; (3) Right -of -way /street use permits; (4) Permits or approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities; (5) Permits or approvals involving the location or development of essential public facilities or utilities; (6) Project permits not listed in this chapter which are categorically exempt from SEPA; (7) Legislative actions such as the adoption of or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, subarea plans, area -wide map amendments, and development regulations. (b) Applicable Procedures. The Director shall determine the proper procedure for the processing of each project permit application pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Disputes 3 Zoning Code Amendment shall be resolved in favor of the higher category. Type I is considered the lowest and Type IV is the highest. (c) Standard Consistency. The City reviews proposals for consistency to applicable development regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. This determination includes consideration of the following: (1) The type of land use permitted, including uses that may be permitted under certain circumstances, provided the criteria for their approval is satisfied; (2) The density of development allowed such as units per acre or other measures of density; (3) Availability and adequacy of infrastructure, which includes public facilities and services identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and (4) Characteristics of the development such as development design standards. (d) stafid—ar-d- AfRelview. The land use r-egulatiens in effeet @ a the date an applimie (de) Conflict with Other Regulations. When any provisions of this chapter conflict with provisions of other City regulations, ordinances or resolutions, the more restrictive shall apply. (e4) Severability. If any part or provision of this chapter or the application of these regulations to any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be confined, in its operations to the part, provision, or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall be rendered and it shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations or the application of them to other persons or circumstances. (fg) General Notice Requirements. The available records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office shall be used to determine the property tax payer of record. All notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to provide the public notice as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of a decision on a permit. (gh) Optional Public Notice. In addition to required public notice, the City may provide notice to other individuals or organizations interested or possibly affected by the proposal. Failure to provide optional public notice shall not be grounds for invalidation of a decision on a permit. 20.02.040 PROJECT PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES. Project permit applications are categorized as Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV project permits. Permit processing procedures may include determination of completeness, notice of application, notice of public hearing and notice of decision. Applicable procedures for the processing of permits are pursuant to the following provisions: (a) Type I Project Permits. These are administrative decisions by the Director who may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application. They include permits categorically exempt from SEPA review or that have had SEPA review completed in connection with another application or permit. Type I project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040 €ellewing this - ehaptet -. Examples of Type I hermits include, administrative code intemretations buildins /construction/demolition permits (SEPA Exempt) final short subdivisions permit revocations. etc. 4 Zoning Code Amendment (b) Type II Project Permit. These are administrative decisions by the Director with limited public notice. The Director has the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application. Type II project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040. Examples of Tyne II hermits include, administrative conditional use permits short plats/binding site plans, site plan review (Requiring SEPA) building /construction/demolition hermits (Requiring SEPA), stand alone nonproiect SEPA, etc. (c) Type III Project Permit. These are Hearing Examiner decisions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Type III project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040 Wiewing this . Examples of Type III permits include. non - administrative conditional use hermits preliminary formal subdivisions, variances. etc. (d) Type IV Project Permit. These are decisions by the City Council after an open or closed - record hearing. The City Council may approve, conditionally approve, modify and approve or deny the application. Type IV project permit processing procedures are set forth in Table 040_ following this ahapteF. Examples of Tyne IV permits include: site specific re -zones final formal subdivisions, development agreements, vacation of subdivisions etc Lel Table 040 Permit Processing Procedures; Application Type Determination Notice of Notice of Notice of of Application Hearing Decision Comp leteness • Type I Permit No No No No o Type II Permit Yes Yes No Yes • Type III Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes • Type IV Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes • Development A eement No No Yes Yes o Final Subdivision — No No No No o Site Specific Rezone Yes Yes Yes Yes o Stand Alone Non - Project SEPA No No No No 1 The hearings examiner holds an open record hearing for preliminary approval The City Council makes a final decision at a public meeting: a second hearing is not required 2 the Hearings Examiner holds an open record hearing The City Council holds a closed record hearing for final approval. 20.02.050 PRESUBMITTAL APPLICATION CONFERENCE, 5 Zoning Code Amendment (a) Purpose. The purpose of the pre - application conference is to acquaint the applicant with the review procedures and applicable Bremerton Municipal Code provisions to the proposal. Type II, III and IV permits require a presubmittal application conference prior to submitting an application. Anyone choosing the consolidated permit process set forth in BMC 20.02.060 also requires a presubmittal submittal application conference Only one (1) meeting is required for all proiect permit applications related to the same proiect action Waiver. The Director may waive the requirement for a presubmittal application conference when a proposal is determined not to be of a size and complexity to require a detailed analysis. jcl Submission. Presubmittal application conferences may be held at any time before an application is submitted. A completed form and related information in sufficient number of copies as determined by the Director are required. The information does not need to meet the submission requirement set forth in BMC 20.02.060(b) JQ Timeline. The City shall hold the presubmittal application conference within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a completed request unless the applicant agrees to an extension of this time in writing. U Nonbinding. The presubmittal application conference is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues and the discussions shall not be binding or prohibit the enforcement of applicable laws. Failure to provide all pertinent information may prevent the City from identifying all of the issues or providing the most effective presubmittal application conference. LQ Lapse of Time. If a time lapse of more than one (1) year occurs between a presubmittal application conference and the submission for permits or if the Director determines the scope of the proiect has changed significantly from the presubmittal application conference a new conference may be required. 20.02.060050 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. Type H (4), HI and 1V PF@jeet PeFfflit - eeeafemnee meeting before &a (I+Application Contents. An application submitted to the department shall be OR feFffiS, in a manner determined by the Director. Unless specified otherwise, an application shall at least include the following: (1) A completed application form; (2) A legal description of the property and associated tax account numberUs (3) A vicinity map showing the location of the property including surrounding major streets, shorelines and other reference points; (4) A site plan; (5) When required, mailing labels containing the names and addresses of all owners of record of parcels within the notification radius; 6 Zoning Code Amendment (g) When required, SEPA checklist and/or other environmental documentation; (78) Additional information required by the Director to support a decision on the application(s); (It)) The application fee(s) for the permit(s) requested as set forth in Chapter 3.01 BMC or by other applicable rule or regulation. 20.02.2MO" VESTING. A project permit application shall vest in the land use regulations in effect on the land at the time of submission of a completed project permit application as defined herein and all application fees are paid. 20.02.080WO OPTIONAL CONSOLIDATED PERMITTING PROCESS. (a) An application which involves two (2) or more permits or procedures may have the processes consolidated under the highest project permit classification and procedures. The applicant shall request if they want their permit processes consolidated or if they want each permit processed individually. (b) If a project involving two (2) or more permits has the permits processed individually, the highest project permit classification and procedures shall be finalized before subsequent permits can be issued. The Director may waive this requirement for permits not dependent on the higher classification of permit for their justification or implementation. (c) If applicable a A single open- record hearing and no more than one closed - record appeal shall be provided on a consolidated review process. The consolidated process may combine an open- record hearing on one or more permits with an open- record appeal hearing on the other permits. 20.02.080 PRE APPUGA940N GONFERENCR th am aetion. 7 Zoning Code Amendment .. - - Im 19 pro. MY. P.Mvp W. • . . • Y. \ • \ r. • • • • • \ r. Y. • r. • Y.. • \ • \ - RPPOQI@d POF 1h@ ffe'ViS A-198—A-41G 24 1 06.0-:4 1 .1-40W. (Ord. 4981 §9, 2906) 20.02.090 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS. When review procedures require a determination of completeness, the following shall apply: (a) Determination. Within twenty-eight (28) days of accepting the application, the department shall provide a written determination to the applicant, stating that: (1) The application is complete; or (2) The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. To the extent known, the City shall identify other agencies of local, state or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application. (b) Failure to Notify. Failure to provide a written determination within the required time shall automatically deem the application complete. (c) Processing. A complete application meets the submission requirements set forth in BMC 20.02.060ORb) and is sufficient for continued processing. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. Should additional information be requested the applicant shall have ninety (90) days from the date notified to submit the requested materials Should the materials not be submitted within the time limits, the application shall lapse (d) Incomplete Application. An incomplete application shall have ninety (90) days from the date of the written determination in subsection (a)(2) of this section for the necessary information to be submitted. If the applicant either refuses in writing or does not submit the required information within the time limits, the application shall lapse. (e) Review of Additional Information. When additional information for an incomplete application is received, the City shall notify the applicant within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the additional information whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary. (f) Review Timeline. Following the date an application is determined complete, the date shall be noted and the one hundred twenty (120) day official review period to render a decision shall begin. 20.02.100 NOTICE OF APPLICATION. When review procedures require a notice of application, the following shall apply: (a) Timeline. The notice shall be provided within fourteen (14) days after the determination of completeness is issued. (b) Content. The notice of application shall include the following: (1) The file number assigned; (2) The date of application, date of the notice of completeness, and the date of the notice of application; (3) A description of the proposed project action and a list of permits included with the application and, if applicable, a list of requested studies; 9 Zoning Code Amendment (4) Identification of known permits not included with the application; (5) Identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposal; (6) The location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (7) A statement of the public comment period and which shall not be less than fourteen (14) or more than thirty (30) days; (8) A statement of the rights of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision and any appeal rights; (9) Any other information determined appropriate by the Ceity. (c) Legal Notice. Notice shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class or higher mail to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Affected Ceity Ddepartments; (iii) State, federal and local agencies with jurisdiction; Ct.v For Type III Permits mailed notice shall also be sent to all property owners of real property (As shown by the records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office) within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Where any portion of a property abutting the subiect property is owned, controlled, or under the option of purchase by the applicant, all property owners within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified: and ( }v) Any person who requests such notice in writing to the Department. (2) Posting of the Property. Notice shall be posted according to the following: (i) At least one (1) location on or adjacent to the subject property and that shall be clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area; (ii) The Director shall determine the specifications to the construction and installation of the notice boards. (3) Publishing Notice. A published notice in the City's official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content shall include the following: (i) Project location; (ii) Project description; (iii) Type of permit(s) required; (iv) Comment period and dates; (v) Location where the complete application may be viewed. (d) Integration of Notices. The City will integrate the notice of application with SEPA review whenever possible. Notification for a notice of application should be combined with the notification for threshold determination and the scoping for a determination of significance whenever possible. (e) Issuance of Decisions. Except for a threshold determination, the City may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a permit until the expiration of the public comment period. (0 Public Comments. Comments shall be as specific as possible. Comments shall be received by the last day of the comment period specified in the notice. If no comments are 10 Zoning Code Amendment f I received by the date specified in the notice from an affected Ceity Ddepartment or agency with jurisdiction, which notification was sent to, then it is presumed that the department or agency has no comments. 20.02.110 NOTICE OF HEARING. When review procedures require a notice of hearing, the following shall apply: (a) Notice Integration. A notice of hearing is required for public hearings. A notice of hearing may be integrated with the notice of application. (b) Notice Content. A written notice of hearing shall contain the following information: (1) The name of the applicant or designated contact; (2) A description of the affected property (not including any legal description); (3) Project summary/description of each project permit application; (4) The application/project file number; (5) The date, time and place of the hearing; (6) A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony; (7) A statement where information may be examined or obtained and the staff contact and phone number; (8) A statement how written testimony or comments may be submitted; (9) The SEPA threshold determination along with any appropriate statement regarding any shared or divided lead agency status and phased review, and stating the end of any final comment period; (10) The deadline (date, time and place) for submitting a SEPA appeal; (11) A statement regarding any administrative appeal process including SEPA appeal. (c) Project Permit Notification. Notification for a hearing on a project permit shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class mail or higher to the following: Q The applicant: Lt i l All property owners of real property (as shown by the records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office) within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Where any portion of a property abutting the subject property is owned, controlled, or under the ovtion of purchase by the applicant, all property owners within a three - hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified, iii Any person providing a written request to the Department. Preliminary Plat. When adiacent to the right -of -way of a state highway, or within two (2) miles of the boundary of a state or municipal aimort, mailed notice shall be given to the Secretary of Transportation, who has fifteen (15) days to respond. (3,) Posting of the Property. The notice shall be posted in the same manner and location(s) as the notice of application set forth in BMC 20.02. 1 00(c)(2). M Publishing Notice. A published legal notice in the City's official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content of the published notice shall include the following information: 11 Zoning Code Amendment Cil Project location: di Project description: Lija Tvve of permits) required: Li y j Comment period and dates: Lv Location where the complete application may be viewed Notice Deadlines. Notice shall be given at least ten (10) days before the hearing date except: LU Shoreline permits pursuant to WAC 173 -27- 110(3) shall be given at least fifteen (15) days. Q An integrated notice of hearing and notice of application shall be given at least fifteen (15) days. Q1 An integrated notice of hearing and notice of a SEPA threshold determination shall be given at least fifteen (15) days Lej Continuation of Hearing. Continued hearings do not require additional notices of hearing. (e.0 Appeal Notification. Notification for a hearing on an open- record or closed - record appeal shall be provided in the following manner: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class mail or higher to the following: (i) The applicant/appellant; (ii) Parties of record; (iii) Affected agencies; (iv) Parties requesting notice; and (v) Other persons whom the department believes may be affected by the action. (1) Mail. The 1*8688 Shall hot sent by (email,) &M slags fRail or. highel. ta the €ellovAag: (i) The appliS014, pr�epefty; and 12 Zoning Code Amendment (i) PFOjeet- la0860 I (iv) Comment period &Rd dmes,& flASOR (16) days. IMA—Agt- -&–ft-eex-( 15) -day% (g) Additional Procedures. In addition to the procedures contained in this chapter, the Department may develop general procedures for notification, including mailing packets and the format of the notice and an affidavit of posting/mailing form to be filled out by the party doing notice. 20.02.120 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. A hearing on a project permit application may be combined with any other hearing on the action held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency pursuant to RC W 36.70B.I 10 as currently enacted or hereinafter amended. 20.02.130 NOTICE OF DECISION. The Director, the Hearing Examiner or the City Council issues a decision at the conclusion of applicable project permit review. The notice of decision may be included as part of the decision or project permit. (a) The Ceity shall provide a notice of decision. The notice shall include a statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA and the procedures for appeal if a consolidated notice was not given under BMC 20.02.110(e)(3). (b) Notification. Notification shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email. first class mail or higher to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision in writing to the Department, or who submitted substantive comments on the application; and (iii) Kitsap County Assessor's Office. 13 Zoning Code Amendment (2) Published Netiae. A Published R9688 in the City's Offieial Newspapep-Of (c) Notice Contents. The notice may include a copy of the report of decision on the project permit application; and shall include, when available, the SEPA threshold determination, the permit decision, the conditions of approval or where they may be viewed by the public, and the general procedures and time limits to file an appeal. (d) Change of Valuation. The notice shall state that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (e) Timelines. The notice shall be issued within one hundred twenty (120) days after I the Ceity notifies the applicant that the application is complete pursuant to BMC 20.02.090, except as follows: (1) The Director makes written findings that a specified amount of additional time is needed for processing the application; or (2) A permit or approval involving the location or development of important public facilities or utilities, or related to the use of public areas or facilities, for public purposes may be excluded from the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit upon a determination of the Director that special circumstances warrant a longer process. (0 Extension of Timelines. If the Ceity is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the parties of record. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits were not met, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. (g) Timeline Exclusion. The one hundred twenty (120) day time limit shall exclude any of the following: (1) Any period an applicant takes to provide additional information, perform studies or provide corrected plans requested by the City. (2) Any period where the City determines that submitted information is insufficient or incorrect, and has requested the applicant provide the necessary information. (3) Any period an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared including scoping and preparing the draft and final EIS. (4) Any period for administrative appeals and any period for reconsideration of decisions of the Hearing Examiner made on project permit applications. The period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed: (i) Ninety (90) days for an open- record appeal hearing; or (ii) Sixty (60) days for a closed - record appeal. (iii) The parties may agree to extend these periods. (5) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City. (6) All excluded periods are calculated from the date the Ceity notifies the applicant to when the information satisfies the City's requirement. (7) When the applicant submits the requested information, the City shall have fourteen (14) days to determine if it is satisfactory. If the information is not satisfactory, but the City fails to notify the applicant within the time limit, the information shall be deemed satisfactory. 14 Zoning Code Amendment (8) The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application: (i) Requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or a development regulation; or (ii) Requires approval of the location of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or (iii) Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete. (h) Liability. The Ceity is not liable for damages due to the Ceity's failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. 20.02.140 APPEALS. (a) General. (1) Those land use and development decisions that are subject to appeal shall become final unless an appeal is filed within the designated time to file an appeal. (2) The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence. (3) Appeal of Type I or Type II project permit final decisions shall be to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the notice of decision. A decision involving a SEPA determination of nonsignificance which required public comments shall have the appeal period extended an additional seven (7) days. (4) Administrative appeal of a SEPA threshold determination is to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.04 BMC and subsection (a)(3) of this section. (5) Appeal of Type III or Type IV project permit final decisions shall be to Kitsap County Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeals shall be filed within twenty-one (2 1) days following the issuance of the notice of decision. (6) Final decision relating to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program may be appealed as follows: (i) Director decisions and Type II shoreline permits may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section or may be appealed directly to the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.180. (ii) Hearing Examiner decisions may be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one (2 1) days of the date of filing pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(6). (b) Standing to Appeal. Only parties of record with standing may initiate an appeal. Standing constitutes the following: (1) For Type I project permits, only the applicant has standing. (2) For project permits not Type I, the following have standing: (i) Applicant; (ii) Anyone who participates in the public hearing; or (iii) Anyone who submits written comments in response to a legal notice within the required time limits. (c) Filing an Appeal. Administrative appeals are filed by submitting a form provided by the Department. The appeal must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period. Appeals may be mailed, faxed or delivered to the Department. 15 Zoning Code Amendment (d) Timing of Decisions. (1) An open- record appeal shall be decided within ninety (90) days from the date the complete appeal was filed. (2) Should an occasion arise that would require a closed - record appeal hearing, such an appeal shall be decided within sixty (60) days. (e) Computation of Time. For purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW 1. 16.050 or by the City's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day. (f) Content of Appeal. An administrative appeal shall not be accepted unless it is written, accompanied by the required appeal fee, and contains at least the following information: (1) Appellant's name, address and phone number; (2) Appellant's statement describing his or her standing, as a party of record, to appeal; (3) Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; (4) Statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; (5) Statement of the relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and (6) A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. (g) Effect. The timely filing of an administrative appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until the appeal is either decided or withdrawn. (h) Notice of Appeal. The Director shall provide public notice of the appeal as provided in BMC 20.02.110(c). 20.02.150 DESIGN REVIEW. Buildings that are proposed for construction in areas having adopted design guidelines are subiect to review and recommendation by the Design Review Board (Board) For any development activity that requires Board review, the applicant must comply with the provisions of this section before a building permit can be approved as follows: U Public Meetings. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public but are not subiect to the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act Chapter 42.30 RCW Conceptual Design Conference. Before submitting a building permit application the applicant shall attend a conceptual design conference with the Board The conference will be scheduled by the Director to occur within thirty (30) days of written request by the applicant The numose of this conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the proiect concept with the Board in the early stages of the proiect development and: G1 To review preliminary sketches of the design proposal presented by the applicant,• X2,1 To discuss how the design guidelines pertain to the proposed development: For the Design Review Board to designate which design guidelines apply to the proposed development based primarily on the location and nature of the proposed development, and 16 Zoning Code Amendment Other application materials the applicant will need to submit with the design review application. LcJ Application. Following the conceptual design conference, the applicant may then submit a building permit application to the Department. The application shall include all documents and exhibits required for the application, as well as all materials required as a result of the conceptual design conference. Public Notice. On determination of a complete application for a building permit requiring design review, the Director shall schedule a design response conference with the Board to occur within sixty (60) calendar days. The Director shall provide public notice of the design response conference per the requirements of BMC 20.02.100. Lel Design Response Conference. The design response stage allows the Board to review the design plans and provide direction to the applicant on issues to be resolved for final approval. The applicant shall present the proposed project and demonstrate its consistency with the design guidelines as discussed in the conceptual design conference to the Board. The Board will consider the information presented and make a formal recommendation to the Director for protect approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The Board may continue the conference if necessary to gather additional information necessary for its recommendation. If the conference is continued to a specific date, no further public notice is required: otherwise notice of continuance shall be mailed to all parties participating in the design response conference. LQ Approval. Approval of a building permit that is subject to Board review is a Type II Director decision, however, the Board's recommendation shall hold substantial weight After reviewing the Board recommendation, the Director may grant deny or conditionally approve an application for the proposed development. Any deviation from the Board's recommendation shall be documented in the Director's findings and conclusions. The decision of the Director may be annealed per the provisions of BMC 20.02.140. 20.02.16038 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES. (a) The City may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction or outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement sets forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. (b) A determination of completeness, notice of hearing and a notice of decision are required pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The one hundred twenty (120) day time limit for the notice of decision shall not apply to a development agreement. (c) When a request for a development agreement is consolidated with a Type III or IV project permit, the public hearing shall be consolidated with the open- record hearing on the permit before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement and approval of the project permit shall be conditioned on City Council approval of the development permit. (d) The City Council may approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution only. I 20.02.170 PLANNED ACTIONS. 17 Zoning Code Amendment A planned action is defined in WAC 197 -11 -164 as one or more types of project action that has had significant environmental impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, subarea plan, fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project. (a) A project action addressed in a planned action does not require an environmental checklist or threshold determination, but may require the checklist for review to mitigate environmental impacts through the site plan review process. (b) To qualify, a project action shall: (1) Be subsequent to or implementing projects in a Comprehensive Plan, subarea plan, fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project; (2) Be located within the City's adopted urban growth areas; (3) Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (4) Not be an essential public facility, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200. (c) The City Council shall designate and approve by ordinance a planned action. The ordinance: (1) Shall describe the type(s) of project action being designated as a planned action; (2) Shall describe how the planned action meets the criteria in subsection (b) of this section, including specific references to the EIS; (3) Shall include findings that the environmental impacts have been identified and adequately addressed in the EIS, subject to project review under WAC 197 -11 -172; (4) Should identify any specific mitigation measures other than applicable development regulations that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as a planned action. (d) The planned action may be limited to certain types of development, to specific geographical areas of the City, and/or a time period identified in the EIS, plan, ordinance or resolution. (e) Review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects. Review of the project shall include: (1) Verification that it meets the description and implements any applicable conditions or mitigation measures identified in the designating ordinance or resolution; (2) Verification that the proposed significant adverse environmental impacts of the project have been adequately addressed in the EIS. (f) Nothing in this section limits the City from using applicable law to place conditions on the project in order to mitigate nonsignificant impacts through normal project review and permitting processes. Appiisatiew 9eteFFR*'R ie NANA Netis Aletie ape 14 01 CGRIP tewess G-Gf ew � tee# ldea�iflg Recision I a�+a+s#�ati�re No the as ae 18 Zoning Code Amendment i 24 setbaGk appFOVal l � No GleagAg -less No No No No PSFFA t -fFeFA No No No No PAW plaFRed No No No NG 64 uRitdevelepMm# Fill aAd gFadipg 4 XeMpt -€Fea3 No Ale Ale Ale kleaAS No No No No �? eseUpatieRpefM4 LaWsGa piAg-w No Ne No Ne 4 No No No Ale l� aa�e� 4 No No No Ale Pug AA;AQF No No No No perFaits- AeWisted 444 I , inns — NO No No Ne 44 I appmoa 1 No Ale No Ale a -an 46� VSh*GlSR4Rety (00) day a�eFeatieaal Ne No Ale No I 494 S+Qa- permit No NO No No I 4-7� j(exsFqpj ftem SraPA)- Site -plaA FOVieW Ves No No NQ TeFapeFaFy Ne No No No stFeaM permits Me�il•+satier�e# 4494 No No No No ,.. 19 Zoning Code Amendment PAal 6heFt No No No No 244 64� RAW biAd*Aq � s�ivisiea No No No No was appl Ga#of*r .. *.. I 9etefmlwati Ale Nett �� T� aR-a� 'Call �� fIGe -6 GAS Completeness WOMINO Aeslsiea I 4 ales Y-es No Yes I � plan Yes des NO des 9sAaeA m* Y-% Yas No Yes (FGqUiFiRg SSPA� Fill and gradiAS PSFM (� iF A3 des des Ale des I No Fes Ale des I No No Ale No 74 SE=RA Y-es des Ne Yas I Fes aFes NO Yes I a1 devele�sRt psFFAit Yes - Yes No Y-ss 4A) I n , - bdivisien � Yes Yes No YFes I 444 amessFAeRt des Fes No des I 424 POR; t Fes des No Yes luildicgaAd athar Fes des Ne Y-% 2512A or dar.;9A Fev'Sw I } .. Yes Fes No Y-" ( A No No No No 20 Zoning Code Amendment .90t PFGPSFIY Q-Rd- thA- RG-We ef deeisieR she'! be iamsiwiasdd 644Y (69) days. Applisa" lleteFM*Raue Netf6e Aletle AlAtle R-ype a 01 Completeness AppNeatfew He&FW9 9661s161i O -14 Yes Yes Yes Yes I � a Yes Yes Yes Yes MajQF Yes Yes Yes Yes sisie�} PFelkniFwy Yes Yes Yes Yes 4� PCB I aFy Yes Yes Yes Yes 63 AUsiAg GGFx►ple Yes Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes 74 aces ayes Y aces pa NO 9 4 ra*eseaim I 44) apse Fes Fes Fes aces I Appliestie Determoaft a Neitiies Netiee e ye of Completeeese of Appliestiea e€44esring e€ -0a-a- ee Wall fopmal � Xes aces Xes Fes We fee �fe 4 araea�ie�e€ Yes Yes Yes ayes 4 6et�ei� 21 Zoning Code Amendment SECTION 3. Figure 20.40(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Zoning Designations" is hereby amended to add the South Kitsap Industrial Area into the chart as follows: The following figure lists the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations with corresponding BMC Title 20 Land Use, implementing zoning districts. Figure 20.40(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CONSISTENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ZONING DISTRICTS DESIGNATION Low Density Residential (LDR) Open Space (OS) Low Density Residential (R -10) Core Centers Supporting Residential (CCSR) City Core Residential (CCR) Neighborhood Centers (NC) Low Density Residential (R -10) Neighborhood Center Core (NCC) District Centers (DC) Low Density Residential (R -10) District Center Core (DCC) Employment Center (EC) Employment Center (EC) Master Development (MD) Institutional (INST) Low Density Residential (R -10) Commercial Corridor (CC) Business Core (BC) Downtown Core (DC) Downtown Regional Center (DRC) Downtown Waterfront (DW) Multiple Residential (MR) Neighborhood Business (NB) Limited Commercial (LC) Low Density Residential (R -10) Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MICI Industrial (I) Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Corridor (CC) Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) (WWRC) Freeway Corridor (FC) Freeway Corridor (FC) Neighborhood Business (NB) Neighborhood Business (NB) Limited Commercial (LC) Limited Commercial (LC) Industrial (1) Industrial (I) Industrial Park (IP) Industrial Park (IP) 22 Zoning Code Amendment Marine Industrial (MI) Marine Industrial (MI) Higher Education (HE) Institutional (INST) Low Density Residential (R -10) Public Sector Redevelopment Site (PSRS) Master Development (MD) Institutional (INST) Transportation, Utilities and Public Industrial Park (IP) Facilities (TUPF) City Utility Lands (CUL) City Utility Lands (CUL) City Utility Lands (CUL) Watershed Lands (WS) Watershed Lands (WS) Reserve Center (RC) (Overlay) Per the implementing zones of the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation Homeport - PSNS PSNS Industrial Support - PSNS SECTION 4. Subsection 20.46.110 in the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Adult Entertainment Businesses" is hereby amended to clarify the allowed locations of such businesses as follows: 20.46.110 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES. This section regulates the location of adult entertainment businesses. The purpose of these regulations is to reduce conflicts between adult entertainment businesses and other land uses. The intent is to protect the City from the blighting impacts of concentrations of adult entertainment businesses while assuring the full enjoyment of all the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the general public. (a) Location of Adult Entertainment Businesses. (1) Adult entertainment businesses as defined in subsection (c) of this section are prohibited within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius of five hundred (500) feet from the following specified uses or zones: (i) Any zone in which residential use is listed as a principal use. (ii) Any public or private school. (iii) Any day care facility as defined in BMC 20.42.040 (iv) Any worship, religious, or church facility as defined in BMC 20.42.040 (v) Any public park. (vi) Any @.-- .center desienated within the Comprehensive Plan. neighber-head- eeffl-ter. as defined in AA (vii) Any public library. (2) The distances provided in this section shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed land is to be separated. (3) Violation of the use provisions of this section is declared to be a public nuisance per se, which shall be abated by the City Attorney as authorized under state law or the City code. 23 Zoning Code Amendment (4) Nothing in this section is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment, operation, or maintenance of any business, building, or use which violates any city code or statute of the state regarding public nuisances, sexual conduct, lewdness, or obscene or harmful matter or the exhibition or public display thereof. SECTION S. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub - sections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2009 CECIL MCCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of , 2009 CECIL MCCONNELL, Mayor Protempore ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2009 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2009 ORDINANCE NO. 24 Zoning Code Amendment R: \Legal\Legal \Ordinances \Community Development \2009 Zoning Code amendments.doc 25 Zoning Code Amendment Exhibit A FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: There are three groups of amendments proposed to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 (generally referred to as the "zoning code "). The amendments are as follows: 1) Updates to 20.02 Project Permitting: The City has established specific requirements for project permitting to ensure applications are reviewed in a comprehensive and timely fashion. The primary goal of these revisions is to provide the reader a more clear and precise outline of the project permitting requirements and to identify technological advances such as email as an acceptable form of communication. 2) 20.40 Figure B Comprehensive Plan 1 Zoning consistency: The City recently annexed the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) and created a Comprehensive Designation of Manufacturing and Industrial Center. This new designation needs to be added to the table within the zoning code to identify the corresponding zoning designation, which is industrial. 3) 20.46.110 Adult Entertainment Business: Currently the code prohibits Adult Entertainment Businesses in community and neighborhood centers, however language in the code is not clear and needs modification to clarify the meaning of community or neighborhood center, as they are currently undefined in the zoning code. "Text Amendments" directs staff to bring amendments that result in any substantive change to a public hearing by the Planning Commission and then to City Council for review and adoption. Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on August 19, 2008 and made a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: Amendments to the BMC Chapter 20.02 include the following: • General housekeeping, such as capitalization, removal of duplication, and organization throughout the chapter. • Simplification of tables by removing duplicative language & errors • Update Notice of Application requirements to include 300' neighborhood mailing requirement for type III permits • Add timelines for application revisions • Add email as an acceptable notification format • Remove publishing requirement for Notice of Decision Exhibit A Minor housekeeping amendments: • Revise BMC 20.40 Figure (b) to include Manufacturing and Industrial Center Comprehensive Plan designation with Industrial as the zoning designation • Revise BMC 20.46.110 to clarify the meaning of community and neighborhood center On June 16, 2009 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments and unanimously recommends these amendments to the City Council for adoption. 2. Procedural History 2.1 February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Workshop 2.2 June 2, 2009 CTED 60 day review period began 2.3 June 5, 2009 Issuance of SEPA DNS 2.4 June 6, 2009 Notice of Public Hearing 2.5 June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Public Hearing 3. Public Comment 3.1 Individuals providing verbal testimony at Planning Commission public hearing: a. do O, qkc k -e`-,AR n, b. C. 4. SEPA Determination A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on June 5, 2009, with a comment deadline of June 17, 2009 and an appeal deadline of June 29, 2009. No comments or appeals have been filed to date. 5. Consistency Zoning Code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020 (d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the Zoning Code text If the criteria outlined below are met. 20.18.020 (d) (1) allows text amendments if they are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendments are minor and continue to uphold the objectives and goals of Comprehensive Plan. These amendments do not change the intent or purpose of the zoning code. Analysis: 20.18.020 allows text amendments if they do not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. The amendments to the Zoning Code do not conflict with any other regulations. Exhibit A II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, Planning Commission concludes that The Zoning Code amendments meet the requirements in BMC 20.18.020, text amendments to the Zoning Code and therefore recommends the adoption of the amendments to the Zoning Code. Respectfully submitted by: 4 ry 78et i Approved by: Greg heeler, Chair DATE SUBMITTED: October 5, 2009 AGENDA BILL "7A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. Committee Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 amending Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton COUNCIL MEETING Date: October 21, 2009 Municipal Code relating to the Mayor's Department: City Council Compensation Presenter: Roy Runyon Phone: 473 -5280 SUMMARY: The current salary established for the Mayor is $117,671. Beginning January 1, 2010 the Mayor's base salary will be reduced to $93,671 per year plus benefits as provided to the management and professional employees of the City pursuant to Chapter 2.50 BMC. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance NO . 5 y,)- FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): It is anticipated that the City will realize a savings of $24,000 annually. G pla 6..4�. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: CONSENT AGENDA ❑ GENERAL BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. ,r09 reducing the Mayor's base salary to $93,671 beginning January 1, 2010. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Proposed amendment to Section 2.03.010 of the BMC relating to the Mayor's compensation. Features and benefits of proposed amendment: I . Reduces Mayor's base salary by $24,000. Benefit: Saves at least $28,800 per year including benefits. 2. No COLA for Mayor unless approved by Council. Benefits: Increases possible savings. Eliminates conflict of interest wherein Mayor may set his/her own COLA within the annual budget. 3. Ordinance is effective January 1, 2010. Benefit: Makes savings available for other 2010 budget needs. 4. Only requires Council action. Benefit: No need for amending City Charter with resulting delays in implementation. 5. "Resets" Mayor's compensation. Benefits: Opens discussion of alternative compensation methods including base +merit/bonus pay. Opens discussion of creating a City Administrator position. ORDINANCE NO. Qp AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the Mayor's compensation. WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, the Mayor's salary is set by ordinance; and WHEREAS, Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code adopted in 2003 established the Mayor's salary beginning in 2003; and WHEREAS, since 2003, the Mayor's salary has been adjusted by budget ordinances; and WHEREAS, the current salary established for the Mayor is $117,671; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 2.03.010 to reduce the Mayor's salary beginning January 1, 2010 and to make other amendments relating to the Mayor's compensation; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION]. Section 2.03.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Mayor" is hereby amended to read as follows 2.03.010 COMPENSATION. Beginning January 1, 2403 the Mayor of the City shall receive a base salary of Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One dollars ($93,671.00) per year plus benefits and afmoal eest of living , ' , as provided to the management and professional employees of the City pursuant to Chapter 2.50 BMC. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2009 1 Mayor's Salary CECIL McCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of , 2009 CECIL McCONNELL, Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2009 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2009 ORDINANCE NO. R: \Legal \Legal \Ordinances \Executive\Mayoes Salary (2009).doc 2 Mayor's Salary