Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/22/2014 AGENDA
M ,"Imp CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ❑ Phone (360)473-5280 OCTOBER 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Beginning at 5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 The Study Session is open to the public, but there will be no opportunities for input or participation;no action is anticipated during the Study Session;and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the City Council, the items will be placed on the November 5, 2014 Council Meeting Agenda A. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED — The following items are budgeted items or have already been reviewed by the appropriate Council Committee: 1. [Quasi-Judicial] Hearing on a resolution to recover fees for abatement costs on the property located at 1127 N. Callow Avenue 2. [Quasi-Judicial] Hearing on a resolution to recover fees for abatement costs on the property located at 1129 N. Callow Avenue 3. Confirm Appointment of David Hedger to the Parks & Recreation Commission 4. Contract Award to Lakeside Industries, Inc. for Paving the Bremerton Senior Center Parking Lot B. BRIEFINGS & FULL PRESENTATIONS 5. Information Briefing on "Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan-Phase I Plan & Policy Report'—Jennifer Barnes, Senior Transportation Engineer, Heffron Transportation, Inc. 6. Grant Agreement with State Department of Commerce for Burwell Pedestrian Tunnel 7. Professional Services Agreement with Fraser + Fogle Architects for Burwell Pedestrian Tunnel Design and Construction Management 8. Ordinance amending Chapter 9A.44 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) by adding Section 9A.44.105 entitled "Unlawful Solicitation" to prohibit Panhandling near ATM and Bus Stops; and Passing or Receiving Anything (like money)from the Street to the Sidewalk on Major Arterials 9. Proposed public hearing on ordinance amending Chapter 3.78 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Multifamily Property Tax Exemption" regarding Boundaries for the Downturn Regional Center Target Area 10. Proposed public hearing on ordinance amending Chapter 20.12 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Land Division" regarding Phasing, Extensions, and Descriptions of Minor and Major Plat Amendments 11. Proposed public hearing on resolution approving the 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Funding Recommendations for inclusion in the 2015 CDBG/HOME Action Plan 12. Information Briefing on "Planning the Future of Block Grant' — Marie Vila, CDBG/HOME Administrator C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Other General Council Business (As necessary...) D. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION ® Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at(360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting. Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan—Phase 1 Plan & Policy Report—DRAFT September 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IB5 This Phase 1 Plan&Policy Report summarizes review of existing relevant transportation plans, policies and trends to support ultimate Phase 2 development of the Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan(KCMTP). Transportation planning at the state, regional and local level is framed by the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act(MAP-21), which was enacted in 2012 and seeks to create a performance-based and multimodal program to strengthen transportation systems within the United States.Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is further governed by the Washington State Growth Management Act(GMA), which requires that jurisdictions create land use plans that show how they will accommodate future population and employment growth, and also plan for the infrastructure and services necessary to support that growth. GMA also calls for coordination and consistency between state, regional and local planning efforts.At the regional level, the Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC)has established policies in VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040 to guide comprehensive plan development for its member jurisdictions, with emphasis on mobility for people, goods, and services. Strategies presented in these documents guide transportation investment decisions to meet growing travel needs for people and freight, calling for more transit, biking and walking facilities, ferries, as well as more complete roadways. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies(CPPB)provide the overall policy framework for long-range planning efforts of Kitsap County jurisdictions under the GMA, and establish a strong policy foundation for development of the KCMTP. Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo will be completing their respective comprehensive plan updates concurrent to the development of the KCMTP. The KCMTP will be most useful if it can serve as a supplement to these plans, without duplicating or potentially conflicting with efforts and information produced at the local levels. Therefore, it is recommended that the KCMTP focus on countywide issues,projects and priorities, which can be challenging to cover thoroughly in local plans due to their multi-jurisdictional nature.The KCMTP may then be incorporated by reference into the individual jurisdictions' transportation elements.Although Kitsap Transit and the Port of Bremerton are not required to adopt a GMA comprehensive plan, their long-range planning needs, which are also multi- jurisdictional in nature, should additionally inform the breadth of scope included in the KCMTP. Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan update will include a public involvement process.To further integrate the local and countywide efforts, it is recommended that the KCMTP development be included as an element in the local comprehensive plan public involvement processes, rather than initiate a separate process.This will serve to avoid confusion from the public about parallel transportation planning efforts, make most efficient use of community members'time, as well as make most efficient use of public resources and staff time. heffron Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan—Phase 1 Plan & Policy Report-DRAFT September 2014 In order to move forward with a countywide multimodal plan, it is important to first understand the previous multimodal planning efforts that have been completed by participating agencies, as well as by regional and state agencies that provide a larger framework within which the plan must be implemented.The Phase 1 effort included extensive review of local, regional, and statewide planning efforts that have been completed to date, as documented in this Plan&Policy Report, resulting in identification of the following opportunities for development of the KCMTP. COUNTIVIDE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK For the KCMTP, an important early step will be for participating jurisdictions to identify the countywide transportation system, and to confirm level of service methods and standards for that system.The countywide transportation system should include roadways and specific intersections that are important to countywide transportation operation.Within this framework, it would be possible for agencies to maintain different standards for roads within their jurisdiction. In keeping with the PSRC's new policies establishing multimodal considerations in level of service standards, it is probable that locally established standards will be refined as part of agencies' comprehensive plan updates. State routes make up the spine of the countywide transportation system, so it is expected that the focus of this effort will be identifying the non-state route facilities that are appropriate to include in the countywide system. Countywide network development should consider corridors serving intra-county(between major activity centers)or regional transportation demand, transit corridors, freight corridors, ferry terminal locations, countywide non-motorized facilities, and locations of intermodal connections. COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM Incorporation of a Complete Streets program, as already established in the CPPs, presents a significant opportunity for multimodal integration within the KCMTP, as it formalizes the principles of considering all potential users (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, transit, and freight) when evaluating a transportation system and identifying and prioritizing potential projects.With P Complete Streets principles established, it would be possible to develop a Complete Streets inventory for the countywide transportation network, which would identify gaps for different users of the system. In addition to identifying the multimodal aspects to be considered, it is expected that a Complete Streets program would also clarify the minimum standards and constraints that must be considered in facility design and improvement.With this type of program in place, Complete Streets progress would become something that can be measured, which can be useful for monitoring progress, as well as providing additional information about project benefits in some grant applications. Context Sensitive Design, as recognized in the CPPs, can also be integrated as an element of Complete Streets standards. Establishment of a Complete Streets program can also potentially provide a framework for prioritization of non-motorized projects, allowing the unconstrained project lists presented in the Kitsap County Draft Non- Motorized Facility Plan to be taken the next step toward prioritization and implementation. heffron Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan—Phase 1 Plan &Policy Report—DRAFT September 2014 BICYCLE FACILITY STANDARDS The adopted design standards of Kitsap jurisdictions are generally consistent with each other, and consistent with local area guidelines established by the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT). Bicycle facilities are the primary area where standards are not consistent, and the KCMTP could provide opportunity for establishing a countywide set of standards. COUNTYWIDE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING With the CPPs explicitly calling for designation of preferred freight routes, the foundation is in place for including freight mobility as an element in the KCMTP.The WSDOT Freight Mobility Plan would provide an appropriate framework in which to begin a more focused countywide effort related to freight movement, to leverage and ensure consistency with statewide freight planning efforts.The KCMTP provides an opportunity to consolidate a number of planning efforts associated with the South Kitsap Industrial Area(SKIA)Bremerton National Airport area, and to explicitly address other areas or corridors in Kitsap County where particular focus on freight mobility is warranted. It is expected that this task would be coordinated with relevant corridor studies that are planned to occur within the same timeframe as the KCMTP development. LOCAL TRANSIT PLANNING There have been numerous studies completed that have focused on high capacity transit and major transit corridor needs within Kitsap County.These studies have primarily been led by Kitsap Transit, with cooperation from the local jurisdictions that would be served and/or affected by additional high capacity routes.These efforts have been consistent with policies established at city, county, and regional levels. Local jurisdictions also have policies that seek to establish more local and off-peak transit service, but it is currently constrained by available transit resources. The KCMTP provides opportunity to evaluate the demand,potential routes, and resources that would be needed to support local and off-peak transit service.As part of a local transit-planning effort, it would be necessary to coordinate with local jurisdictions to identify where local and off- peak routes would be most useful, and to conduct land use and demand analysis to support the assessment.To implement desired levels of transit service and transit-supportive capital improvements, it will be important to identify areas where local funding is needed, as well as areas where local, state and/or federal partnerships would be feasible.Although it is recognized that the types, locations and frequencies of bus service will always be constrained by the funding that is available, it may be beneficial in the KCMTP to identify potential additional local circulator bus routes and conduct planning-level analysis of the potential capital and operating costs for such service, so that all agencies involved have a good understanding of revenue needs when exploring potential funding options. PASSENGER FERRY PLANNING The KCMTP provides opportunity to leverage policies at the state, regional and local levels that put great focus encouraging and expanding ferry service for walk-on passengers,both by measures that would increase walk-on passengers on vehicle ferries, and also through the potential implementation of additional passenger-only ferries between Bremerton, Kingston, heffron Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan—Phase 1 Plan & Policy Report-DRAFT September 2014 Southworth and downtown Seattle. This focus is not only consistent with goals to encourage alternative transportation modes, but also reflects a practical strategy that recognizes the limits to increasing the peak-period vehicle capacity of ferries, and therefore seeks to accommodate future growth in demand through increasing off-peak and walk-on ridership. Based on these existing policies, the greatest opportunities related to ferry service are measures that would encourage and increase walk-on ferry ridership, including improving transit service and intermodal connections at ferry terminals, and encouraging transit-oriented development near terminals. There is also opportunity for the KCMTP to build upon the passenger-only ferry business plan and long-range strategy currently under development by Kitsap Transit, potentially through the more detailed land use and demand analysis discussed above for local transit planning. COUNTir%VIDE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES The KCMTP provides an opportunity to establish a uniform set of system performance measures that can be adopted and implemented countywide. There are several advantages to establishing system performance measures. In addition to providing practical measures that technical staff can use to monitor the performance of the transportation system, they can be an effective tool for communicating the outcomes of transportation investments to decision-makers and community members.A performance management program can include specific targets or standards for each measure, but can alternatively be designed to show trends, which may be simpler to monitor. Performance monitoring is also consistent with efforts that are happening at the state and regional levels. Once MAP-21 measures are identified, comparable measures established at the local level could potentially help leverage projects for federal funding, though this potential will need to be monitored as more information becomes available. It is expected that the jurisdictions will need to go through a process similar to that undertaken in the establishment of countywide policies, in order to define the program's objectives, performance measures, and implementation approach. PROJECT PROGRAMMING FOR COUNTYWIDE FUNDING A critical component of the KCMTP will be to develop an implementation plan for projects and programs identified in the areas described above.It is expected that this element would include review of the sources of revenue that participating jurisdictions typically utilize to contribute to countywide projects, and identification of additional potential revenue sources that could be considered.This element of the KCMTP should also include detailed review of potential grant sources for funding of countywide projects, and identification of the criteria considered for each potential grant. Project prioritization criteria could be developed based upon typical grant criteria, and could also be tied to system performance measures described above. heffron Kitsap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan Briefing - Phase 1 Work Bremerton City Council October 22 , 2014 Phase 1 Overview ► Reviewed and assessed previous plans and reports completed by Kitsap jurisdictions ► Summarized review and findings in preliminary draft Phase 1 Plan & Policy Report ► Conducted workshop with KRCC TransTAC and Planning Directors to review preliminary findings ► Agency feedback - workshop and written comments incorporated into Draft Plan & Policy Report Plan & Policy ► Over 100 plans , reports , and policy documents reviewed - local , regional , state , federal ► Assessment of policies and procedures - consistencies , inconsistencies , gaps , opportunities ► Assessment of demographic and transportation trends further inform analysis and conclusions ► Conclusions and agency feedback inform scope of Phase 2 development -of the KCMTP (Kit5ap Countywide Multimodal Transportation Plan) ..:....... Key Phase 1 Findings ► KCMTP should • Supplement, not replicate , local comprehensive and master plans under concurrent development • Focus on countywide multi jurisdictional issues , projects , and priorities that can be challenging to include -in local plans • Be integrated into public involvement processes planned for County and City 2016 comprehensive plan updates , rather than initiate a separate process =-amu Key Phase 1 Findings ► Recommended KCMTP (Phase 2) scope • Establish Countywide Transportation Network • Countywide Freight/Airport Transportation Element • Countywide Complete Streets Element • Transit / Passenger Ferry Element • Countywide Transportation System Performance Measures • Project Programming for Countywide Funding Phase 2 scope CountywideTransportation Network ► Include facilities that are important to countywide transportation ► Assume all state routes included - work with local jurisdictions to identify appropriate other roads and facilities , for example • Corridors serving intra-county (between major activity centers) or regional transportation demand • Freight corridors • Transit corridors • Ferry terminal locations • Countywide non-motorized facilities • Locations of intermodal connections Phase 2 Scope Freight / Airport Element ► Identify freight centers • PSIC-Bremerton / Bremerton National Airport • Other industrial centers identified in local comprehensive plans ► Identify preferred freight / airport access routes within the countywide transportation network ► Work with jurisdictions to • Identify existing and future demand on freight network • Identify transportation deficiencies and potential improvement projects needed to support freight movement/airport access ► Develop freight element with a vernacular consistent with statewide plans and grant applications Phase 2 Scope Complete Streets / Green Streets Element ► Formalize principles established in the Countywide Planning Policies of considering all users (pedestrian , bicycle , vehicular, transit, and freight) , while also considering stormwater, when evaluating a transportation system and identifying and prioritizing potential projects ► Establish Complete Streets policies , criteria and standards to guide facility planning ► Develop Complete Street inventory for Countywide Transportation Network, based upon criteria developed Phase 2 scope Transit / Passenger FerryElement ► Consolidate relevant high -capacity and transit corridor studies previously completed ► Conduct land use / demand analysis to support local transit and passenger ferry planning ► Work with local jurisdictions and Kitsap Transit to identify potential routes and resources needed to support more local and off- peak transit ► Identify measures / strategies to encourage and increase walk-on ferry ridership Phase 2 scope Transportation system Performance Measures ► Establish uniform set of system performance measures that can be adopted and implemented countywide ► Identify measures consistent with (emerging) efforts at federal , state , and regional levels o Establishment of freight system performance goals is a high priority at. the state level ► Kitsap agencies encies wiII likely need to go through a process to define the programs objectives , performance measures , and implementation approach Phase 2 scope Countywide Project Programming ► Build upon work started in Phase 1 to • Review sources of revenue that jurisdictions typically utilize to fund countywide projects • Identify other potential sources of revenue that could be considered ► Project prioritization criteria could potentially be developed based upon typical grant criteria, system performance measures , and other priorities established in Countywide Planning Policies Next Steps ► Briefings to local councils and commissions - mid- September to early- November ► Incorporate agency feedback from briefings into Final Plan & Policy Report and Phase 2 recommendations ► Coordinate with agency staff (primarily through TransTAC) to finalize Phase 2 work plan ► Begin Phase 2 development of KCMTP in 2015 - complete in 2016 , concurrent to local comprehensive plan update timeline i i J .j J DSC c� � ; o 0 0 0 D P _ -hf :Y s yam; • Navy records from 1912 show lans for the : ur e Pedestrian Tunnel ; • The tunnel was constructed to su Y y�ort WWI housm : (Navy Yard Hotel/ Craven Cent.',' = , � I i � ..............r.......... tet+. c �71orgni v 1 ♦y I, . r -�' 71'61 r .c ��,�• ilff 11E �� �I i�C � I _ L ,f ��•�:�7w.i.e __ { �� 1 i17w/'�.•! AWlpfs- _ PE The Craved Cente.i zeas centered on Park Avenue between Burwell and Fourth Street o • The 100-year old tunnel facility includes a stairwell, the 90-ft long concrete tunnel under Burwell, and the south entrance to the Shipyard CIA T --V —SEEfilm 7 Bremerton North Portal - Cinema �r7' 7" South Portal � i Burwell Street Stairwell at North Portal \ South Portal r ODJ M Park Ave Major Features: • Relocate secure access to new north plaza meet and greet area to `'�: oilEup��iu ,..--..--- ,: :.:, µ, ............. .L......... ... ...........�...,1 improve pedestrian ---- l �L��ili�l �1�1�I�il�iill� :.. 11((11l 11 1t 111144 11 (1(1 Iltt - t1���IIIIIIII��lII�1�11�11I1�1� L �i l+• k����i, _. safety --, - ,,,.. � ����I'�� ,j�„►� ,,,;, E • Contemporary architectural fit and finish to better fit into downtown • Architectural security is fencing around property • Limited landscaping ------...---------_._. I k ° gg ;i ; r , 'r 1. R. . LINO, Am.:. . Ono.,Imm a: ...... ... .. Sall 00�p Aw memo .:: .... ='691'1 :1• 1 I i�b!rM ,p z-. s'. .. .. .. 103 l , '•F M�1 .......... 1........:r. .:.. ...::.:... All✓dry. M� rw r �+ 8 ^:t :��'r:a. ,,.... �'4»*�.dv��pg.3:,,..:��s.�i�t+ji:�x�:���:n�:•� �'�'�� �O� D ®� D 0 a:•I i Major Features: - • Remove and replace f -- abandoned and ;sR deficient electrical cabinets and conduits • Remove several I �= deficient buildings, - handrails and a staircase_ a • Remove uneven ; asphalt and install new pedestrian f acilities • Install new architectural features at the portal entrance �> r' Navy completed design. with Federal Washington State Department of CommercePO.D.42525 State appropriated construction funds in Direct Appropriations Agreement between: 2013 legislation. under Jobs and Economic City of Bremerton Development Program. and Washington state Department of Commerce Grant funds final design, construction, CM, inspection, etc. Project scope is Naval Safety Project scalable to ensure costs do not exceed �Bremerton ' Project Type:Corn Direct available funds Execution/Start Date: Date of Contract ,. Grant Terms: • $1.3M total; $1,261,000 available • $39K held back for Commerce Admin. Innovation is in our nature.00% Department of Commerce • No match required t Contracts: • PSA with Fraser.-Fogle (Designer of Record) • Construction Contract Schedule: ���i !I���VIII i 1�;1� 1,.. . , .... . ,1 •. ..L.. ,1,1111111,4111,1 ,. ' Design. Start Nov, 2014 i�O �$ �'�� IIIII'IIII�t IIIII�i II „ SII I��IIIII�I► ' D� • Advertise Jan, 2015 • Const begin Apr, 2015 _ • Complete Nov, 2015 Prioritization of work (north � to south) - �lJi- Improvements transferred to '� -� "�a; I `� Navy upon completion _ Room" all I� Naval ---- _VN a CITY OF ti `\h� BREMERTON \ �e Mainle`�? S e Dilo N 41, is <fi��nt !�4' +�?C` ,t 1Y,FpR :.�:r���l:+`+a !n •hi•.,r � 'v,'f'���F '`..��•5�;.'. }a.R a4;.�: t-4a„h,..la•Y'h �� r •i 1, '`a ta'�, '.y.•,%e r:�,7'fir; h.- `t.:rt•'•.P. :�.#.:'}k,'�''�';y,� �'}^:%-; :.}u \.: :;`. v ..�.... .F.•'Yr:<. .;,Fr y�. '�;{.afi.viv'. :�..°\u"v`�ac>�, ��' t��'S' � �',^:: S"�T..L i.R-: '"i..<�c:.:<`.+r'r-r'• .F �;.:\>o5;i t�`3����a.;S \i`4iC•�a}� �" °'•:` -":d��' �.�e,:;:'`�i�°�••�o^cR� ...r,,{-.'•,�-.:.d,:+3`ry";..... c�:yS°, s:a':•St3;a� ���i'����a'��c^A ,... �.... ;p:'•-";9•a,. { c s ProposedAi- i Revise Subdivision Chapter of Zoning Code (BMC 20. 12) : � o Major vs. Minor Preliminary Approvals 2. Phasing Extensions ON �s Q� �g�� h%:•: `� � a i>. '•�3''���< � yr.� '� =SG$iso.`i'[s:•rf:x._:ilx`�'.x�.3:i;Lilt.1.a�'��':�a�-is`-----..Y.�,:...-•---:. °¢ _�vla'�'_--- •�---- ---•---•--..w....�..._.-•-----•---- it k 0 0 0 r lrocn�ss (The- Abr,`dglec�' Ve�,, slionl,') (D Preliminary Plat Approval o Conceptual Level Vests a project for 5 years o-) Used for Financing 0 Lot sizes - Density 0 Open Space 0 Environmental Review 0 Sewer & Water Service Ac= L: Availability 0 roado Fire Access - Fire Flow 0 Conceptual Storm- water Plan 0 Establishes conditions for final approval .......... i S U C �J n I'lle r Ia-, r ', �\\/0 � [r rocess )11" " =, -), P J1, cc/ (The Abridged Version) i c) Site Development Construction of Site Improvements 5 years to complete site work t f 1' �i .............. 0 0 u A a� v cc;i,1 P r o c e ro, d 1, i v[,,, s � o n p (The Abridged Version) @ Final Plat Approval City checks to ensure all conditions of approval have been met. co) Infrastructure must be completed oo Last check before creation of lots • --A 4C. -MML--- - - - I ,�,, J j n �'u, N � J L o �j' coi, L ro � (� s cz ,The Abridged Version) o Only after Final Plat Approval AQ SA= 'siy. - ..a; �'r; a - a -ao„'gti'.".=,°„ 'd3'°°�� °�`' °�°-',y- � }•'`�;r .`'�;:. .. °.a,° .:�;�:,.. �• � wry ;. �<<. - � 4-' e° fe E'::� �Pro�°°�r$ ., a° -- � � .�•° o�: .�,. ,• ":�:o:;..,�. ,, t ;�` ;� �y;._Vis;?;�,:�°°^•. ,G�. ,�, U5u U Minor Revision include: g Changes to storm-water pond size Change boundaries of an open space area Roadway design - topography issues fl Current Code very vague and easily misconstrued L ,)jjor . vs N/Unor rrenm � cr\\, ,c, provds ou Planning Commission's Recommendation: Clarify what is a Minor Amendments Establish thresholds o Minor reduction of 5 lots @ No increase in lots Minor alteration (less than 10%) ry @ No change in Phasing RECOMMENDED @MaiorAmendments = reapply for • p r laminarY plat approval a I © No vesting HE' - .:nt..d! .-'�.5� � - „moi F n �% A� �' }����,�\-�• ,... .._. .. +F'a a6' --"•_._____�i°_....✓..�'C _ -"_�.......�_�.�..�_._._._._._.__.__�..._�_. � �v.. •,i� ._ a.$'w __ !77� IK Ph IV LI tt' --J @ Project is Vested for 5 years* o Complete Preliminary Subdivision Application Vested to codes of that day @ Ensuring time is allotted to complete work without new code requirements. c State Extensions (RCW 58. 17. 140) = standard 5 yrs (2 Due to Recession: 10 Years 7 Years 5 Years R04 LN I ° 1 O ° ° j !; ill Ill n ,/—,, �i or S IL `v� CC) it . C_�� o When is Phasing Requested ? Large Subdivisions GOOOtELLOWS NAVY YARD TRACTS VOL 3.VAC£52_ Bay Vista '; INOT q AN'f Phase 1 NAY i 1 a PH i CENTERLINE SR 21 j i FUTURE PHASE 3 I CENTERLINE KITSAP WAY FUTURE PHASE 2 _ ONT TRACTS /1 AUTG �; 1 THE PRESERVE I' . NOT P C J / FUTURE PHASE 4 FUTURE PHASE 3 =. 4 Phase, 3 .61 BMC does not address Phasing beyond 5yrs r a° yin •/ \ '•6�.. ,.r...e....:nC:..._..' .�..r ` `C -- — -- _e—..—�.—..—..�.. �•. or s---.� II I.' .I a �:;%„ ..._. �.._ +�. �•, �, Planning Plin Commission's Recommendation: � I Set limit to number of phases o 4 Phases Max @ 1st phase done in 5 yrs 2 yr time for remaining phases I cu TOTAL: 11 years Add criteria for Phasing: RECOMMENDED How to be reviewed c� What needs to be submittedIBM= E = �Y� � 4 maim r .. • r �i �'r � R • . • I , • ..tip � - lift ---- h 3 ) Extension for Subdivisions o Extensions for already approved lots o "We need more time. . . " o Due to recession - more request coming in o State (RCW) increased time for plat completion o Must consider plat implications of compliance (vesting) o Vest to date of complete application o Current code is silent about extensions I I I i rl s o n G• © Planning Commission's Recommendation: Set limit to extensions: o Two 1 -yr extensions for life of project Tangible and reasonable diligence being made for infrastructure Prove that infrastructure can be installed during the time of the extension RE'COMMEND'ED (2 Add criteria for Applying for Extensions: Must request prior to expired ISO- Irl I —� �\q f✓ \ om"."\ I��J/ �� (Odl III �� �� 1I ( , �JI �" �J li j � � I ,/L_� CEJ I i Revise Subdivision Chapter of Zoning Code: u � o Major vs. Minor Preliminary Approvals o Phasing Extensions r. _... WFll :-r'Yi' cd a d Y L� "h I ._..n�9.�..:__..�..._e._..wP...�...•..a.._a�....c.s...t.mJw:.�wi'i:�k..]aw, _.wru._�.__..ss E..` •~�. t f: -_ •+' i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: Bremerton City Council From: Marie Vila,CDBG/HOME Administrator Date: October 22,2014 Re: "Planning the Future of Block Grant" A Strategic Vision -------.......__.. . ..... -. ... -- - ._... -- - Change is upon us, whether we like it or not.As our Block Grant funding allocation decreases and regulations multiply, the status quo makes little sense. We need a vision for Block Grant that will help make the City the best it can be, together with a process that gets the work done better,smarter. 1. Consolidated Plan Update due During 2015, Block Grant Staff will be developing the new 2016-2021 Consolidated Plan. HUD requires each Block Grant entitlement jurisdiction to adopt a 5-year Consolidated Plan to guide the use of Block Grant Funds.The Consolidated Plan comprises a Community Needs Assessment,Housing Market Analysis,and a Strategic Plan,which together provide the roadmap guiding the City's expenditures of Block Grant funds. 2. HUD Community Needs Assessment The City of Bremerton was one of 50 communities selected nationwide by HUD to take part in a pilot"Community Needs Assessment".The April event,attended by about 30 stakeholders from the Navy,business community,government,agencies and HUD opened up discussion about how to make Bremerton a great place. Discussion touched on many topics, but economic development and homeownership were recurring themes. HUD then conducted an analysis of the comments and presented ideas and resources to staff related to homebuyer/homeowner programs,economic development/Section 108, neighborhood revitalization programs.This event shed light of where our community thinks our priorities are and was a great starting point as we prepare to update our Consolidated Plan. 3. Council Request Council has expressed an interest in how CDBG can make an impact on the City's economic development activity,as well as curiosity about the use of HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee, which is a component of the CDBG program often used in conjunction with economic development activities.Staff experience indicates that a real,CDBG-funded economic development initiative will not happen unless spearheaded by the City itself. Now is the time to define a vision that will move us forward gracefully and strategically. Planning for the Future of Block Grant—Current Conditions Funding Trends • Major shifts(ie decreases)in funding,funding uncertainty • Show downward trend of funding • No indicators of future improvement City of Bremerton CDBG Funding Trends $700,000 I - — I $631,000 $596,956 $600,000 I jI$500,0001........................_....._.._._.. _._....__.. .. .. . ... j I I ..._...... ....__......_.__...................__..._._.._.......__.._....................._.........__........_............__. .._ $400,000 I........__.._.............._.._.... $396,716 $300,000 ;. ._ .........__................................. In 2012 HUD introduced ' I changes to the formula $200,000 calculation for determining funding alloctions-to Bremerton's disadvantage $loo,000 j 1 I 333 i 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Current Consolidated Plan • Reactionary • Weak Strategic Plan; it is a listing of"important issues"with little/no prioritization,no ranking, and no targeting of specific,identified issues. If everything is a priority,there are not priorities. • Because of the broad brush approach,virtually any project that is eligible for funding can compete. Current Program • City is a Funder; process is driven by availability of funding, not by City priorities. • Full,competitive NOFA and application • Coordinated Grant Application with KC Block Grant and KRCC Homeless Grant programs ✓ Over 50 applications received each year ✓ Complications due to non-Bremerton political forces ✓ Regulatory and administrative burden not predictable from year to year ✓ Process is too elaborate for small amount of funds at stake—"million dollar process" - ........_.... — --- — --- _................__._...._......... --- - -- ..............._.................. --._.._.._...,._..__._..._ Determining best use of Block Grant Funds There are many undisputable needs in our community;there are also insufficient funds to address them. How do we determine what the highest and best use of Block Grant funds is? Assuming we cannot fix everything,and assuming that targeting our declining funds more strategically is more effective,what other criteria can we use to assist in priority selection? 1. Are there any agencies in our community that address the need? 2. Are there other funding sources available to address the need? 3. Will the need be addressed without the initiative of the City? _ - . ........... 'Measuring Impact__ --......._......---------------._. --....... If the City adopts a more strategic approach to allocation of its Block Grant funds,the measureable outcomes would be substantially different. For example,if an Economic Development approach is selected,the City would see increases in square footage of useable residential or retail space,tax revenue from lease and business activity,sales tax revenue,and the ripple effect of a vibrant business core.Additionally, Block Grant would continue to ensure that low income residents benefit from the improvements through new jobs,and a more sustainable future. Moving Forward I Task Begin End Consolidated Plan-begin planning meetings with Kitsap October 2014 County Block Grant Presentation to Council"Planning the Future of CDBG" October 22,2015 October 22,2015 Consolidated Plan-strategic goal setting;Council October,2015 February 2015 Consolidated Plan Community Needs Assessment, Housing February,2015 TBD Market Analysis-Begin 2016 Policy Plan development February 2015 May 2015 2106 Policy Plan-PH and adoption by Council May/June 2015 Consolidated Plan analysis of data,development of Strategic Plan Consolidated Plan-update Citizen Participation Plan August,2015 Assembly of a Citizen Committee to assist with Sept,2015 implementation of Consolidated Plan goals Development of annual Action Plan Sept,2015 Nov,2015 2016 Action Plan to HUD Nov 15,2015 Publish 2016-2021 Consolidated Plan January 1,2016 What would a new Block Grant Program look like? A new Block Grant Program would be a combination of two factors: 1)a Consolidated Plan with targeted,specific goals and priorities and 2)a funds allocation process that is right-sized and flexible and to meet the City's goals. Option 1:Status Quo o "Broad brush" Consolidated Plan priorities—process driven by availability of funds o Follow current program competitive NOFA and Coordinated Grant process 0 65%Capital, 15%Public Service,20%Administration Option 1 Advantages: Option 1 Disadvantages • status quo • City is a funder, not truly driving the • Subrecipients have priorities for use of the funds. traditionally brought a • Process is too large for the amount of lot of matching funds funds at stake. • Reactionary • City unable to address certain identified needs,such as slum and blight,economic development Option 2:Targeted Approach o Specific,limited, listed Consolidated Plan priorities-process driven by specific City priorities o Follow current program competitive NOFA and Coordinated Grant process 0 65%Capital, 15%Public Service,20%Administration Option 2 Advantages: Option 2 Disadvantages • City is driving the • Process is too large for the amount of priorities for use of the funds at stake. funds. • Somewhat reactionary • Targeted priorities will . Consolidated Plan may identify specific allow Bremerton to priorities for which there is no agency address identified in our community to addresses them needs more effectively (ie,slum/blight,econ dev) • Subrecipients have • Timeliness could be an issue traditionally brought a lot of matching funds • Fewer projects would be eligible for funding Agency concerns: due to targeted priorities • Fewer projects would be eligible to apply due to targeted priorities Option 3:City Driven Targeted Approach o Specific, limited,ordered Consolidated Plan priorities-process driven by specific City priorities o Funds competition based City-issued RFP for specific projects to meet identified priorities 0 80%Capital,20%Administration ................. - - .._.............._ ---......_._ . Option 3 Advantages: Option 3 Disadvantages • City is driving the • City would have to forge new priorities for use of the partnerships to ensure CDBG continues funds. leveraging matching funds. • Targeted priorities will allow Bremerton to address identified needs more effectively Aeency concerns: • Ability to effectively • Agencies would have to find alternate address Slum&Blight funding sources i • Ability to impact economic development more effectively • Opens up option of using Section 108 Loan Guarantee I • Potential long-term economic benefits i • City can streamline process as needed I • Flexible and Responsive to City needs • Ability to better coordinate with Comprehensive Plan .Goals I • More predictable workload • Fewer proposals u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u � '� �,�� / •. ���/�u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u L , C Cit of Bremerton y Commun�t Develo ment y p Planning the Future of Block Grant Blocks Grant Pro :ram J City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch Grant A StrategicVision ; goals • Make Bremerton the best it can be • Find sustainable solutions to our challenges • Grow long-term prosperity for all • Strive for better, smarter, more effective use of funds City of Bremerton Community Development Blodz Grant Program A Strategic Vision - crossroads Bremerton at a crossroads. . . h L City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBlodz Grant Strategic Vision - crossroads I* Change... • Funding allocation has decreased since 2012 formula revision • Allocation process is excessive for the funding available & Opportunity • 2016 Consolidated Planning begins now • HUD Community Needs Assessment (April 14) points to a new direction (economic development and homeownership housing) • City Council request expressed an interest in exploring a new vision for the future of Block Grant City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch • Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Current Conditions 1 . Declining funds - CDBG (34% decrease in 2012) $700,000 $631,000 $596,956 $600,000 u $500,000 $400,000 �— /� � $396,716 $300,000 ' In 2012 HUD introduced changes to the formula calculation for determining $200,000 funding allocations - to Bremerton's disadvantage $100,000 $0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch Grant Strategic Visi n - crossroads Current Conditions 1 . Declining funds - HOME (38% decrease in 2012, 45% from 2010) $500,000 r $450,000 mo`"`"t+] $400,825 $400,000 �+ $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 _,---- In 2012 HUD introduced $248,810i $200,000 changes to the formula ! calculation for determining $150,000 funding allocations - to I Bremerton's disadvantage $100,000 $50,000 .$0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Current Conditions 2. Weak Consolidated Plan • Broad brush approach • Everything is a priority • No targeting City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBlock • Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Current Conditions 3. Money-driven Process • City is only a funder • Process is "reactionary", not pro-active • Applicants seek funding based primarily on their own agency goals and financial need, not based on the City's priorities ooon - c Toss gads Current Conditions 3. Allocation process is oversized for the funding available • The "Million-Dollar Process" • Overwhelming number of applications — over 50 this year • Process encourages many applications because there are no clear funding priorities. _4a R , City of Bremerton Community Development Block Grant Program A Strategic Vision - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 0 0 City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program trategicVision - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 1 . Pro-Active approach • Tight Consolidated Plan - Goals and Priorities drive the allocation • Few specific, strategic goals • Targeting — geographic and / or programmatic City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch • Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 2. Strategic targeting • Address missed opportunities ✓ "Blighted Areas ✓ Broaden Economic Development initiative ✓ Target ongoing problems more effectively, such as homeowner housing, aging housing stock of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 3. Opportunities • Consider utilizing tools such as Section 108 Loan Guarantee, deemed risky under existing program • Consider HUD initiatives such as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas • New Partnership opportunities City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBlocl:z Grant trategicc isio - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 5. Efficiencies • City can streamline program as needed • Flexible and responsive to City needs • Explore Program partnerships • More predictable workload • Continued planning and administration collaboration with Kitsap Block Grant City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strategic Vision - crossroads Moving Forward Strategically 4. Measuring Impact • Long-Term accomplishments • More sustainable outcomes • Framework for future prosperity • Further-reaching — "ripple effect" City of Bremerton Community Development Block Grant Program A Strategic Vision What would a new Block Grant look like? City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strategic Vision What does a new Block Grant look like? Option 1: Status Quo • "Broad Brush" Consolidated Plan Priorities, process driven by funds availability • Follow current competitive NOFA with Coordinated Grant Process • CDBG 65% Capital, 15% Services, 20% Administration • HOME 75% unrestricted Capital, 15% restricted Capital (CHDO), 10% Administration City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program strati is Vision What does a new Block Grant look like? Option 2: Prioritized Approach • Specific, limited Consolidated Plan Priorities; process driven by City priorities and goals NEW • Follow current competitive NOFA with Coordinated Grant Process • CDBG 65% Capital, 15% Services, 20% Administration • HOME 75% unrestricted Capital, 15% restricted Capital (CHDO), 10% Administration City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch Grant StrategicVision What does a new Block Grant look like? Option 3: Citv-Driven Targeted Approach • Specific, limited Consolidated Plan Priorities; process driven by City priorities and goals NEW • Funds competition via City-issued RFP for specific projects to meet identified priorities and goals NEW • CDBG 80% Capital, 20% Administration NEW • HOME 75% unrestricted Capital, 15% restricted Capital (CHDO), 10% Administration • Opportunity to use HUD programs and tools such as Section 108 and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas. 5 City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBlock • Program Strategic Vision What does a new Block Grant look like? Determining the Best Use of Block Grant Funds 1. Are there agencies in the area who's mission is to address the need? 2. Are there other funding sources available to address the need? 3. Will the need be addressed without the initiative of the City? City of Bremerton Community Development Blociz Grant Program A Strategic Vision Example. . . Mt Vernon, WA 0 0 City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strate is Visio - example What does a new Block Grant look like? Example: Mt. Vernon, WA Flood Protection Project Summary: • Comprehensive redevelopment of historic downtown • Goal is to guide investment of public and private resources in the downtown area over the next 20 years • Purpose is to: 1. Protect the City's downtown area from flood damage 2. Enhance public shoreline and river access City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program StrategicVision What does a new Block Grant look like? Example: Mt. Vernon, WA Flood Protection Project Benefits: 1. Enable redevelopment and economic revitalization to the historic downtown 2. Stabilize and protect both local and state property tax base and tax revenue 3. Critical backbone to a regional shoreline trail system and link to community parks. City of Bremerton Community DevelopmentBloch • Program StrategicVision 10 What does a new Block Grant look like? Example: Mt. Vernon, WA Flood Protection Project CEEVELAND AVENUE T_�.I •: S r {a �p .O lI •� � SELOND SfIIEEI j � y 4�p I`�'I :iDl r LI) ,o r tr0 0 i N f P D 5 7 /`f City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program icVision What does a new Block Grant look like? Example: Mt. Vernon, WA Flood Protection Pro/ect Economic Benefits 1. 100+ immediate construction jobs 2. +1,800 construction jobs over next 5-15 years due to redevelopment activity 3. 626 new jobs in 5 years and 1,338 within 15 years 4. 125,000 sq ft of new retail commercial 5. 55,000 sq ft of new office space 6. 200 units of high-density residential City of Bremerton Community Developmenti • ? Grant Program Strati icVision What does a new Block Grant look like? Example: Mt. Vernon, WA Flood Protection Project Economic Benefits - over the next 30 years 7. Cumulative sales tax will increase $156 million 8. Property tax will increase $9 million 9. 2,548 new jobs within the next 30 years C' o 0@Mfw@H C@MMURhy Owd@Pffume = locks P ogres How block Grant funds to strategically address long-standing issues .? T-A b i C,n . From: Patty Lent Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:47 PM To: City Council j Subject: FW:ART Presentations Hello President Wheeler and Council Members, I wanted you to know that each of the four cities in Kitsap County have received the presentation from Commissioner Rob Gelder regarding the draft of changes to continue KRCC after McClure Consulting, LLC's contract expires December, 2014. Please discuss the bulleted points and if more questions arise, please see that Commissioner Gelder receives them in plenty of time to report back and finalize the final changes for adoption. Thank you in advance, Patty Lent, Mayor City of Bremerton From: Robert Gelder [mailto:rgelder(&co.kitsap.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:34 PM To: McClure, Mary Cc: RPutaansuu(&cityofportorchard.us; Anne Blair; Ed Stern (estern(@cityofpoulsbo.com); Patty Lent; Robert Gelder Subject: ART Presentations Mary and ART members, Last evening I completed the 4I of 4 presentations to City Councils on the ART recommendations for moving forward: functions,form, and funding. All in all the presentations were well received. Poulsbo gave a unanimous head nod in support at the meeting. Each of the other councils work-shopped them afterward and I don't have the conclusions. Questions were generally similar: • Funding formula:transportation surcharge—add to local match vs. being part of grant funding received (per Mark Gulbranson at last KRCC meeting)? • Lack of information or proposal for Tribal contributions? • Functions don't list Economic Development under the first bullet? • Need for a "fairness policy" when making transportation funding decisions? • Do the Tribes receive transportation funding through KRCC/PSRC funding or the PRTPO? • When and what would trigger the surcharge payment?Award? Obligation? Etc. All in all, I think there is consensus for the need and role that KRCC plays as a council of governments. There are questions related to the details of implementation,which I deferred as we haven't discussed this much as a decision hasn't been made. I told council members I was open to receiving more questions and that my recommendation is that ART continues in 2015 to oversee implementation. Likely, until all councils have deliberated,we won't have a final vote on the recommendations until November. See you all soon, Rob 1 Robert Gelder Commissioner, District 1 Kitsap County 614 Division Street, MS-4 Port Orchard,WA 98366 (360) 337-7080 rgelder@co.kitsap.wa.us www.kitsapgov.com General inquiries to: kitsapcommissioners@co.kitsag.wa.us (360)337-7080 Kitsap County Public WorksWQ`%� An APWA Accredited Agency 2 Gd��Es• > Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council O: • y Chair Proposed Member Agency Dues for 2015 Mayor Tim Matthes 4- City of Port Orchard Vice-Chair Commissioner Robert Gelder•'• Proposed Kitsap County KRCC %of 2010 Proposed 2016 Dues: %of total Commissioner Charlotte Garrido Contributing Census 2014 Dues 2015 Dues .00075% Proposed Commissioner Linda Streissguth Actual Kitsap County Agencies Kitsap pop Part A General Fund 2016 Dues Mayor Patty Lent Part A Council Member Leslie Daus Kitsap County Council Member Greg Wheeler (excl. Cities) 67.7% $119,720 . $119,720 $60,292 41.0% Council Member Dina DavisBremerton 15.1% $25,568 $25,568 $25,544 17.4% City of Bremerton Bainbridge Isl 9.2% $28,818 $28,818 $16,245 11.1% Mayor Anne Blair i Council Member Steve Bonkowski Port Orchard 4.4% $6,067 $6,067 $7,671 5.2% Council Member Wayne Roth' Poulsbo 3.7% $6,717 $6,717 $8,476 5.8% City of Bainbridge Island Port of Council Member Bek Ashby Bremerton * 42.0% $7,800 $7,800 $51310 3.6% Council Member Jeff Cartwright' City of Port Orchard Kitsap Transit * 100.0% $10,616 $10,616 $23,428 15.9% Mayor Becky Erickson❖ Suquamish 2.0% Council Member Ed Stern' Tribe * $1,083 $1,083 n/a City ofPoulsbo PGST Tribe * 0.4% $1,083 $1,083 n/a Council Chair Leonard Forsman Total Dues Support $207,472 $207,472 $146,966 100.0% Rob Purser' Suquamish Tribe— Council Chair Jeromy Sullivan Chris Placentia' Proposal for 2015: Port Gamble S'Klallam Tnbe"' (1) Dues as shown above to accomplish 2015 Work Program Commissioner Axel Strakeliahn Commissioner Larry Stokes' + Port of Bremerton (2) Institute Part B: Transportation Project Surcharge (1%): Captain Tom Zwolfer { Federally-funded projects thru all PSRC funding programs. Sylvia Klatman,PAO" Naval Base Kitsap•• , Goal: Build operating reserve (25%) Mary McClure Concept for 2016: Executive Management McClure Consulting LLC (1) Dues calculated as % of Member Agency General Fund (example above is based on 2012113 General Fund data). Alternate , Ex Officio Member i + Associate Member (2) Refined Transportation Project Surcharge. ❖Executive Committee P.O.Box WA * Kingston,WA 98346 Note that the proposed 2015 dues structure does not include potential one-time 360-377-4900(voice) organizational transition costs e.g. facility re-location costs. 360-297-7762(fax) www KitsapRegionalCouncil org �: • Kitsap Regional Iteratively Consider: Functions 1° Coordinating Council Form 03 • Funding Agency Review Team Chair Recommendations to KRCC Executive Board Mayor Tim Matthes•: September 23, 2014 City of Port Orchard Functions: KRCC should provide: Vice-Chair Commissioner Robert Gelder-• 1. Coordination of Planning & Funding in three primary areas: Kitsap County Land Use Transportation Commissioner Charlotte Garrido Affordable Housing Commissioner Linda Streissguth Kitsap County 2. Coordination of Kitsap's participation in the Puget Sound Regional Council, Mayor Patty Lent❖ including: Council Member Greg Wheeler Representation/Appointments: Kitsap Other Cities Council Member Leslie Daugs Policy Boards: Alternates & Representatives Coordination Council Member Dina Davis' City of Bremerton Policy Review& Coordination KRCC Staff participation in appropriate committees Mayor Anne Blair A.- Council Member Steve Bonkowski 3. Coordination and communication of member agencies' legislative priorities, Council Member Wayne Roth• including review of AWC, WASC, and PSRC agendas, to the Kitsap City of Bainbridge Island Legislative Caucus. Council Member Bek Ashby 4. KRCC should be the"Table of Opportunity"to address emerging issues of Council Member Jeff Cartwright` 9 9 City of Port Orchard importance to its member agencies. Evaluation Criteria (see attached Mayor Becky Erickson❖ should be applied to topics/initiatives for relevance/appropriateness. Council Member Ed Stern• An example is KRCC's serving as"home" to existing programs, e.g. City ofPoulsbo Community Development Block Grant Program (Balance of County) and/or Council Chair Leonard Forsman "releasing" programs that may no longer"fit" e.g. the Collaborative Fisheries Director Rob Purser* Strategies Program (2004-09), Wellness Initiative (2005-06). Suquamish Tribe— Council Chair Jeromy Sullivan Organizational Form: KRCC should continue as an independent agency Noo-Kayet Chris Placentia• based on its existing ILA. Port Gamble S'Klaliam Tribe"' Commissioner Axel Strakeljahn For long-term sustainability and maximized operations, KRCC would be best- Commissioner Larry Stokes• served through: Port of Bremerton . Employed Executive Director(reporting to the KRCC Executive Committee) Captain Tom Zwolfer • With KRCC-employed staff(reporting to the Executive Director) Sylvia Klatman,PAO• . From a centrally-located office Naval Base Kitsap•• . Contracting for HR/Finance/Legal services Mary McClure Executive Management + Recognizing that the organization is currently staffed through a Management McClure Consulting LLC Services Contract that extends through December 31, 2014, a well-grounded Alternate transition plan will be proposed. 'Ex Officio Member Associate Member Funding Proposal: A new approach to financial equity and sustainability is Executive Committee needed. Proposed elements: 2015 2016 -) P.0 Box 1934 Dues: as in 2014 General Fund % Kingston,WA 98346 Transportation Grant %: "test run" as refined 360-377-4900(voice) 360-297-7762(fax) Operating reserve level: 25% Begin to accrue during 2015 www KitsapRegionalCouncil.ora Prepare for transition from existing Management Services Contract Ge��Es. Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council O3 • Chair Screening Criteria Mayor Tim Matthes 4• City of Port Orchard Vice-Chair 1. Is there broad interest among Board members? Commissioner Robert Gelder 4- Kitsap County •KitsapCounty 2. Does it affect more than one jurisdiction 4 all jurisdictions? Commissioner Charlotte Garrido Commissioner Linda Streissguth 3. What is the Scope or Scale? Kitsap County A. Provide forum for discussion Mayor Patty Lent 4- Council Member Leslie Daugs B. Gather& Provide Information Council Member Greg Wheeler C. Explore issue & next step(s) Council Member Dino DavisD. Task within existing Project or Program / Project/ Program City of Bremerton Mayor Anne Blair 46 4. Relevance / Impact/ Effect on other programs / Other work depends Council Member Steve Bonkowski On It Council Member Wayne Roth' City of Bainbridge Island Council Member Bek Ashby 5. Required / Mandate vs. Opportunity Council Member Jeff Cartwright* City of Port Orchard 6. Tailor emerging concepts to Kitsap Mayor Becky Erickson•:• Council Member Ed Stern" 7. Is there another available venue providing: City ofPoulsbo A. All relevant parties at the table? Council Chair Leonard Forsman B. Content nexus? Rob Purser" f neutral C. Skill set: utral ers ective / coordinating /facilitating / synthesizing? Suquamish Tribe"' perspective g g y g' Council Chair Jeromy Sullivan D. Linkages to other activities? Council Member Dawn Purser* Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe— 8. Does it utilize existing relationships? Build upon 4 depend upon Commissioner Axel Strakeljahn Commissioner Larry Stokes* 9. Agency Capacity: Port of Bremerton A. Workload / can it be deferred / timing flexibility? Captain Tom Zwolfer B. Is there funding available: short-term / sustainable? Tom Danaher,PAO• C. Develop Agency Capacity: Knowledge / Issue familiarity/ Contacts Naval Base Kitsap Mary McClure Executive Management McClure Consulting LLC ' Alternate Ex Officio Member ***Associate Member �o Executive Committee P.O.Box 1934 Kingston,WA 98346 360-377-4900(voice) 360-297-7762(fax) WNW KitsapRegionalCouncil org GXjIES Our Shared Vision: A countywide culture of collaboration • 'A through communication and mutual respect;.supporting all public P agencies to the service of the common good. ~.� cly X03 �� The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council is a forum & catalyst for achieving this vision. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Staff are dedicated to the service of this vision. Here's how we try to operationalize it: Countywide • We work with each community as part of the whole County.We are not advocates for any one community—we are advocates for all communities together. • Government-to-government collaboration/interaction affects all of our communities. • We look for synergies and connections"over the fence"that others might not see. Culture • People's history together sets up shared expectation & understanding of how things are. • Small details communicate volumes about expectations. Collaboration • We find common ground through recognizing each person's/agency's interests. • We foster an exchange& interaction of ideas towards common ground &goals. • Hearing others' ideas inspires them, and us,to work together willingly. • We can accomplish more together than separately—the easy stuff has already been done. • Productive exchange is usually networked, not necessarily hierarchical. Communication • Shared information empowers everyone involved. • Information includes ideas, opinions, perceptions, and (what we accept as)factual data. • Information flow can't be controlled but it can be enabled in a positive vein. • Rich communication takes time and space. • Choosing the right technology can improve the quality of communication. Mutual Respect • We believe all perspectives and realms of experience can contribute to a sturdy outcome. • We assume the positive worth of the contributions of everyone. • Respect is demonstrated through action.The small act is often the most telling one. Supporting • We try to enhance public agencies' serving their constituents& reaching their goals. • We try to make the work of cooperation&coordination easier for all involved. Public Agencies • Agencies,organizations, &departments under the authority of public funding and/or electoral responsibilities, performing services on behalf of the community. The Common Good • We want to benefit and enrich the community as a whole. • We want to help move Kitsap County forward into a positive future through shared understanding and thoughtful decisions. Adopted by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council in 2009.