HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2015 AGENDA Saturday, February 7, 2015
9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Cascade Room at Gold Mountain Golf Course
Council Planning Session
8:30— 9:00 AM Continental breakfast will be served
9:00— 9:05 AM Opening Comments by President Wheeler
10:25— 10:35 AM 10-Minute Break
Noon— 12:30 PM 30-Minute Lunch
1:40— 1:50 PM 10-Minute Break
2:55— 3:00 PM Wrap-up by President Wheeler
Proposed Topics by Council Members for Discussion:
• Public Safety
o Increase public safety
o Are red-light cameras still necessary?
o Request Performance audit/review of Fire Department
o Revisit Regional Fire Authority efforts
o Communicate more with Community Resource Officer
• Public Works
o Repair City roads
o Maintain sidewalks to ensure ADA friendly
o Improve Walkability
o Create a "Utility Advisory Committee"
o Develop policy for City-owned commercial property
• Business Development/Community Development
o Increase Economic Development on Wheaton Way and rest of the City
o Look for ways to make Bremerton business friendly
o Develop incentives to attract businesses to long vacant buildings
o Develop home improvement incentives and/or remove barriers for single and
multi-family property owners
o Increase home ownership
o Plan for void after Harrison Hospital moves to Silverdale
o Try to maintain business in Harrison Hospital area
o Look for marketing opportunities
o Develop annexation implementation plan; and create a schedule with timelines
o Establish Facebook Policy
o Increase public outreach
o Look at Historic Recognition
o Increase involvement in Callow Avenue Business District
• Improve Financial Sustainability of City Parks
o Decide on business model/funding plan for Parks Department
3
JOINT PLANNING SESSION
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2015
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME TO INDICATE YOUR ATTENDANCE &
YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE MEETING
NOTIFICATIONS ...THANK YOU!
NAME EMAIL ADDRESS
xp-
t IN Pot:A it-A Svor�t�?U BSI-rI NCS.
r D/V P_ r /vim T
±sc n EA7aC-0 rn
For information purposes, below are the goals as proposed by each
Council Member for inclusion on the Joint Planning Session Agenda;
From: Mike Sullivan
1) Continue to increase public safety.
2) Repair city roads.
3) Maintain all maintain all sidewalks to ensure they are ADA friendly.
From: Leslie Daugs
Please note this is still a draft, 1 have a few others but have not fine-tuned the list
1) Plan/Implement how to get rid of Red-light Cameras(is it necessary or not)
2) Continue to move District 2 forward with growth (Wheaton Way),this also includes Harrison Hospital. (to
look at ways to not loose current businesses in this area)
3) Continue work with East Park neighbors...to ensure a safe living environment for their families vs Highmark
Homes As well as Hanford neighbors to ensure a safe living environment(Speed Humps)
From: Jerald McDonald
1) Economic Development:
a. What do we do to make Bremerton Business Friendly?
b. Can we extend the "one year" time requirement to be current with all codes?Too many of our
building do not meet current codes and have been empty for more than a year. Do we have any
flexibility in these requirements?
2) Annexation discussion:
a. Let's build a schedule/time-line for these annexations to happen...
b. Riddell Road North(we have negotiations to complete with the county...is this happening?
c. Rocky Point
d. Gorst
3) Marketing:
a. loin Visit Seattle
b. Discuss a "Visit Bremerton"Website
c. Chamber/City/(whomever)create a welcome store front
d. Better direction signs
From: Dino Davis
The subtopics are either directives or hurdles(in the case of annexations)
1) Improve walkability
a. Build on 6th and Callow improvements to create a bow wave of neighborhood pride
b. Invest in sidewalks on streets in Southwest area of the district(Preble, Farragut& Rodgers). Run
off and erosion is causing havoc with stormwater and depressing neighborhoods.
c. Continue to create new and improve pedestrian crossings
2) Increase public&civic interaction
a. Bi-weekly lunch with a councilperson
b. Attending Block watch meetings with Officer Sexton
C.
3) Economic Development for Historic Charleston Business District
a. Actively support Cinco De Mayo celebration
b. Leverage support of other elected. (Commissioners, Representatives and Congressman)
c. Revitalize Business owners and citizen community group
d.
4) Annexations
a. Navy Yard City
b. Rocky Point
c. Gorst
i. Sewer versus septic agreement
ii. Volunteer Fire agreements
iii. Utility rate savings for coming into the•city
From: Greg Wheeler
1) Work with City Staff and Council to develop home improvement incentives;and/or remove barriers,to
single and multi-family property owners.
2) Continue working with the Harrison Medical Center; Bremerton Community Healthcare Advisory Group,to
ensure Bremerton residents maintain access to acute and urgent care in the Bremerton City limits.
3) Work with commercial property owners; in Bremerton,to attract businesses to long vacant buildings.
4) Return Kitsap Transit's cross sound foot ferry,the Rich Passage 1,to Bremerton/Seattle full service.
From: Eric Younger
1) Decide on a business model/funding plan going forward for the Parks department.
2) Performance audit/review of the Fire Department(similar to what we recently did for our Police
Department).
3) Increase home ownership(i.e. implement a "Move to Bremerton"campaign).
4) Planning for the void after Harrison moves to Silverdale.
PROPOSED 2015 GOALS AND PRIORTIES
(Councilman Runyon)
I. EMPHASIZE FUNCTION OVER FORM FOR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
1. Restructure the Parks and Recreation Dept.
a. Merge Parks Maintenance Div. with PW Facilities Division.
b. Place Recreation Div. under Finance Dept.
c. Streamlines government while enhancing core functions (recreation and parks
maintenance).
d. Potential cost savings up to $250K less additional funds dedicated to Parks O&M.
e. Parks Commission to continue role.
f. 2015 to be transition period with full implementation Jan.1, 2016.
2. Revive the effort to create a Regional Fire Authority(RFA)
a. Purpose 1: "Through consolidation, find administrative and operational efficiencies that
maintain or improve current core emergency service levels without subsidizing or
raising tax revenue significantly."Bremerton Fire Department And South Kitsap Fire
Rescue Consolidation Fact Finding Financial Report August 2010,pg. 15.
b. Purpose 2: Control govt. costs. "The net potential cost savings from a Bremerton Fire
Department and South Kitsap Fire Rescue consolidation would be approximately
$140,000 the first year, $935,000 in the first three years and $655,000 each year
thereafter."Ibid.
c. First step: Update information by third quarter of 2015 in preparation for consolidation
discussions with SK&FR and possibly, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue.
d. Second step: Initiate discussions with applicable fire district boards to gauge interest.
3. Adopt a policy regarding City-owned commercial property to reduce City's role as a
landlord...Is this a core function of our government and at what cost?
a. Negotiate with tenants of the MLK Library building, the Bremerton Community
Theater building and the Naval Museum Building(Bldg. 50)to have tenants pay some
or all of the O&M costs.
b. Offer to sell properties to existing tenants.
II. ADOPT NEW INITIATIVES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1. Obtain Certified Local Government(CLG) status by adopting an historic preservation
ordinance in order to:
a. Become eligible for State Historic Preservation Office technical assistance, grants and
information exchange.
b. Conduct state and federally recognized historic preservation.
c. Enable registration of local historic properties in the National Register.
d. Facilitate property eligibility for Federal tax incentives for historic preservation and for
the WA State special valuation tax incentive defined as: "A revision of the assessed
value of a historic property which subtracts, for up to ten years, such rehabilitation costs
as are approved by a local review board." Special Valuation Flyer, Washington State
Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
1. Leverage a portion of City CDBG fundingthrough hrough the HUD Sect. 108 loan guarantee
program for assistance to the private sector.
a. Tool for helping finance rehabilitation of privately-owned commercial buildings and
correct code deficiencies in those buildings.
b. May be used to finance special economic development activities under CDBG program.
c. City can issue loan guarantees worth up to five times its annual approved CDBG
entitlement.
d. Can be used in conjunction with other federal (and state) tax incentives like New
Market Tax Credits, CLG-related tax incentives for historic preservation and
Community Empowerment Zone incentives (BMC 2.15).
e. There is an element of risk but there have been no documented HUD Sect. 108 defaults.
III. CREATE A MORE OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE AND EFFECTVE GOVERNMENT
1. Create a Utilities Advisory Committee(UAC)
a. Modeled somewhat after City of Bainbridge Island UAC.
b. Membership consisting of one ex-officio member from the council and a combination
of up to seven resident and non-resident City utility rate payers including at least two
commercial rate payers.
c. Provides somewhat of a buffer between council desire to raise rates to increase PILOT
revenue for the GF and Street Fund and,helps represent the interests of the rate payers.
d. Provides a body whose sole focus is City utilities.
2. Video tape all council committee meetings;study sessions and special meetings
a. Preserves record of meetings. .
b. Make recordings available via BKAT website.
3. Establish an official City Facebook presence.
PROPOSED 2015 GOALS AND PRIORTIES
(Councilman Runyon)
r.
I
,
I
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 9833711 Phone (360)473-5280
2014 - 2015 City Council Goals & Priorities
Established at the Joint Planning Session on 2/01/2014
1 . Continue to look for ways to increase funding for the following:
• Streets
• Annexation
• Building Contingency Reserve Fund
2. Expand Communication with Citizens through Website & Social Media
3. Explore options for Marketing and Branding
4. Update Equipment Rental & Reserve (ER&R) Funding Policy
5. Encourage Business Development
6. Determine Sustainable Business Model for Parks & Recreation
7. Neighborhood Traffic Improvements
i
PARKS & RECREATION
680 LEBO BOULEVARD • BREMERTON, WA 98310-5841
TEL: 360.473.5305, FAX: 360.473.5882 • www.ci.bremerton.wa.us
r "Commiftedto Z'nricknj Zi fe in V remerfon"
January 9, 2015
To: City Council and Mayor Lent
Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Near-Term Park Funding Recommendations
Attached to this cover sheet is a memo including a series of near-term Park funding
recommendations from Bremerton's Parks and Recreation Commission. The quest to identify
additional funding sources to maintain and improve the City Park System began in 2012 when
Council requested staff to develop revenue options outside of the general fund. The staff
generated options are included as Attachment A to the Parks and Recreation Commission's
report.
In December of 2012, then Council president Jim McDonald requested the formation of a
citizen park funding Task Force. This group chaired by former Mayor Cary Bozeman met over 9
months in 2013. The Task Force's final report (Attachment B) did not represent a consensus
solution to the chronic funding shortfall affecting City Parks and recreational facilities; however
valuable citizen input was obtained on the issue through the Task Forces public deliberations.
During 2014, the Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to continue work on
the issue of parks funding. The Parks and Recreation Commission's report provided represents
ten months of work uncovering key circumstances that helped create the park funding
scarcity, examines how staff and the community have responded to this circumstance and puts
forward three recommendations for enhancing park funding.
As the Parks and Recreation Commission has experienced the turnover of several long time
members in the fall 2014, current Chair, Colleen Smidt has expressed the Commission's desire
to consider these recommendations near-term and would like the opportunity to continue work
on the subject of park funding in 2015.
Sincerely,
Wyn Birkenthal
Director
Bremerton Parks & Recreation
360.473.5752
I
SBREMERTON PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
° 680 LEBO BLVD., BREMERTON, WA 98310
360.473.5305
Parks and Recreation Commission Near-Term Funding Recommendations
The Parks and Recreation Commission has examined the issue of providing sustainable funding
to the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department through a series of special meetings held
May through November of 2014. During this timeframe the Commission has reviewed:
• the organization of the department
• the amount of labor expended on each park and facility
• existing revenue streams
• potential revenue streams
• funding methods used by other jurisdictions
• the use of volunteers, grants, donations and partnerships,
• the Parks and Recreation Department's budgeting process and the level of cost recovery
received from programs, rentals and events
The concept of a park levy or bond issue was not discussed at length as this idea was thoroughly
examined during the 2013 parks funding task force effort led by former Mayor Cary Bozeman.
(Bozeman Funding Task Force Report attached)
There have been significant improvements in the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department's
overall ability to carry out the tasks it is charged with during the timeframe of 2012 to the winter
of 2014. This progress is owed to a variety of factors. First, an ethos of volunteerism has taken
hold within the community and the department. Volunteer participation led by members of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and committed citizens have been responsible for significant
maintenance assistance at the following locations:
• Kiwanis Park
• Evergreen Rotary Park
• Forest Ridge Park
• NAD Park
• Bremerton Gateway
• Bataan Park
• Blueberry Park
• Bremerton Senior Center
• Ivy Green Cemetery
The volunteer work typically included ordinary maintenance tasks such as weeding, edging, litter
pick-up,painting of buildings and pressure washing. However at several locations the volunteer
impacts have extended beyond the ordinary maintenance realm to include capital repair and
development sponsored by partnership groups including Habitat for Humanity, The Kitsap 911
Memorial Committee, VFW Post 239 and the Bremerton Beyond Accessible Playgrounds group.
1
Substantial examples include the donation of dollars and labor combined with grant funds to
construct:
• Beyond Accessible Playground at Evergreen Rotary Park
• 911 Memorial at Evergreen Rotary Park
• Picnic Shelter at Bataan Park
• Kiwanis Park improvements sponsored by the Bremerton Kiwanis Club and Our Lady
Star of the Sea Church
The most recent capital gift sponsored by a volunteer organization is the $52,000 reconstruction
of the Senior Citizens Center parking lot sponsored by Seniors Uncovering Money Solutions
(SUMS). In recent years staff has become considerably more accepting and adept in utilizing
volunteer assistance which has contributed to the surge of community participation within the
park system. Parks Commissioner Sunny Wheeler has recently stepped forward to assist Parks
and Recreation staff with organizing and recognizing volunteers. In the near future, City Council
can expect community volunteers to take on additional low-skilled and repetitive nature
maintenance work within the park system freeing up skilled maintenance staff to perform
playground repairs, structural improvements, drainage upgrades, irrigation adjustments and
similar tasks in the City's 33 park sites.
In addition to Volunteerism, the condition of the park system has benefitted from stabilization in
staffing levels and budgeted resources. The deep cuts of 2010 and 2011 required an adjustment
period where park services were prioritized and hard choices were made to restructure staff
duties to insure that basic maintenance is provided to key neighborhood and community
facilities. Service reductions during this era included elimination of the following services and
staffing levels:
• Concerts in the Parks
• Specialized camps for youth with disabilities
• Preschool programs
• Adult cultural enrichment classes
• Operation of Jarstad Aquatic Center by the Park and Recreation Department
• Loss of the Ivy Green Cemetery caretaker
• Elimination of a second mowing-trimming crew
• Reduced number of Department sponsored Holiday and Special events
• Decrease in Open Gym availability; and,
• Staffing reductions in customer service, senior center, and ball-field maintenance staff
During the adjustment period to the new reality of tighter Parks and Recreation general fund
budgets a variety of services were shifted from the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department
to the non-profit sector. Examples include: Soccer Field Development; Smith Park operation;
Aquatic Center operation and Boardwalk concerts. The 911 Memorial maintenance has been
performed by Bremerton VFW Post 239 from the time the Memorial was completed helping free
up staff maintenance resources.
2
Lastly, interdepartmental cooperation has increased to where the Public Works and Utilities
Department is cognizant of the impact their projects have upon the maintenance and operating
responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Department. As a result city streetscape projects
containing irrigation systems, street trees, rain gardens and flower baskets are no longer
constructed by others and "dumped" on the Parks and Recreation Department for upkeep. In fact
the Public Works Department recognizing the impact of the Gateway with its 3 linear miles of
trees, lawn and median landscaping has upon Parks and Recreation resources now carries out
joint maintenance efforts with Parks and Recreation staff. This has lessened the burden of
Gateway maintenance on any one department and led to a better maintained south entrance to the
City.
From 2007 to 2014 the Parks and Recreation Department has addressed capital improvement
needs by obtaining community support for park infrastructure projects and translating that
support into successful grant applications to fund park redevelopment projects. This method has
been used to re-develop Blueberry, Lions, Matan, Stephenson Canyon, Kiwanis and portions of
East Park and Evergreen Rotary Park. However the source of local matching funds that allow the
Parks and Recreation Department to pursue state and federal grant opportunities has been
expended and is in need of replenishment. These grant match funds are held in the Parks and
Recreation Capital Development Fund(3 10 Fund). Traditional sources used to feed the 310 Fund
formerly included revenues from several Downtown waterfront parking lots, these parking lots
were located on the current site of the Kitsap Conference Center. Other 310 Fund sources
included golf revenue in excess of Gold Mountain operating expenses. Since the nationwide
downturn in the golf business that began in the early 2000's, the city's golf complex has not been
able to produce revenue beyond that needed to pay for capital repair, operating expenses and
bond debt. In earlier times,the 310 Fund was replenished by occasional land sale proceeds and
contributions from city real estate excise tax (REET) collections. REET contributions to the
Parks and Recreation Capital Development Fund have been extremely limited since the 2006.
This is due in part to the downturn in REET collections brought about by the great recession.
Capital expenses related to matching park improvement grants and upgrading the aging Jarstad
Aquatic Center have largely eroded the balance of the 310 Fund. It should be noted the aquatic
center management contract with the YMCA frees up approximately $200,000 in city operating
expenses. At the same time, the Fund's sources of replenishment have disappeared owing to the
variety of circumstances mentioned above. The shortage of capital funds required to match park
improvement grants is currently the largest single problem facing the Bremerton Parks and
Recreation Department. Re-establishing a consistent funding source for capital improvements to
replace worn infrastructure and keep parks safe and attractive is a priority that is addressed in the
Parks and Recreation Commission's Near-Term Funding Recommendations. A full listing of
parks and facilities improvements needed is located on pages 110 and 111 of Bremerton's 2014
Parks and Recreation 6 Year Park Plan. This document was developed jointly by the Parks and
Recreation Commission and Department staff and adopted by City Council in March of 2014.
3
Parks and Recreation Commission Near-Term Recommendations
Recommendation #1 (Addresses Capital Funding)
Address the need to replace aging park infrastructure by directing a set percentage of Real Estate
Excise Tax proceeds (after debt obligations funded by REET are met) to the Parks and
Recreation Capital Development Fund for the purpose of matching grants.
Recommendation # 2
Prior to implementing tax abatement or reduction measures, examine the impacts the measure(s)
may have upon the funding available for maintenance and operation of the Bremerton Parks and
Recreation Department and its various parks and recreation assets.
Recommendation #3
Adjust the Boardwalk rental fees to an amount that can be collected from special event sponsors
to help offset costs associated with the Blackberry Festival, Harbor Festival, Concerts, Weddings
and similar events.
The City recently added 3 new members to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Timothy
Baker, Richard Huddy and David Hedger. Together these 3 citizens bring a wealth of business,
financial and legal expertise to the Commission. As a group we expect to take advantage of their
knowledge and experience to refine and expand upon the recommendations in this document. We
are optimistic about the future of Bremerton's Parks and Recreation system in 2015 and will
continue to work on the issue of sustainable funding for City Parks and Recreation services.
Current Parks and Recreation Commission Members
Colleen Smidt, Chair
Sunny Wheeler, Vice-Chair
Timothy Baker
Richard Huddy
Patrick Watson
Past Members contributing to this report
Robert Dollar
John Larson
Richard Nerf
Jeremiah Wiley
4
Attachment A
BREMERTON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
680 LEBO BLVD:; BREMERTON, WA 98310
360.473.5305
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Patty Lent and City Council
From: Wyn Birkenthal, Director of Parks and Recreation
Subject: Review of Park Funding Mechanisms to Stabilize Park Funding
At the March 22"d Council Retreat there was a consensus that options to bring financial stability to
the City's park operations should be explored in depth. This memorandum is prepared to provide
background to facilitate the discussion.
1. Formation of a Parks Foundation
Park and Recreation Foundations are a staple in larger cities (Spokane, Portland, Tacoma, and
Vancouver) where they are typically operated with an independent board of directors with the
city staff serving in a liaison capacity. Most of these foundations include support from F/T or P/T
paid staff. Portland's Park Foundation is one of the most successful in the Pacific Northwest
having accumulated $10.5 million during its 10 year history. Close to 100% of these donations
are earmarked for specific park improvement projects, the exception is a scholarship fund
maintained by the Foundation to subsidize Portland's summer playground program. Park
Foundations in jurisdictions closer to Bremerton's population are found in the Key Peninsula
Park District and Kent. Everett's formerly independent park foundation merged with the Greater
Everett Community Foundation to provide some economy of scale in board management, staff
time and record keeping.
To establish an independent Foundation it is necessary to create articles of incorporation, by law,
apply for a 501 c3 designation to the IRS, appoint a volunteer board of directors and produce
accurate financial statements detailing expenses and revenues. Park foundations garner resources
by a variety of means including one on one solicitation of gifts, hosting an internet site,
organizing benefit events,marketing Foundation memberships at a cost between$200 and
$10,000 annually and advertising volunteer opportunities.
Foundation Advantages:
• Provides a 3rd party organization to support Parks and Recreation efforts
• Can help place park projects on the agenda of community groups
• May attract bequests and estate gifts if foundation is marketed to attorneys
Foundation Disadvantages
• Park Foundations elsewhere do not appear to provide significant budget support for
maintenance and park operations expenses. People like to give to capital projects.
• Financial support from existing park Foundations encompasses new capital projects and
recreation program scholarships.
1
• Small Foundations sometimes have difficulty obtaining and sustaining the support needed to
incorporate, hold fundraising events, solicit board and general members,perform accounting,
reporting and audit functions and invest assets.
• Several small foundations have been folded into larger community foundations after to
achieve economy of scale needed to carryout operating functions.
2. Park Fees on New Construction (Impact Fees)
Background:
Park Fees collected from new residential projects are authorized under Growth Management and
the State Environmental Protection Act. There are rules that apply under both, including: 1) Fees
may only be collected to pay for the impacts related to the growth in population related to the
project the fees are assessed against; 2) Impact fees may not be used to correct an existing
park/recreation system deficiency; 3) Fee must have a nexus to the project it is collected from;
and 4) Fee must be used on a capital project within 6 years of collection or the fee will be
returned to the payee with interest.
Typically fees relate to the City's standard for the number of developed park acres per thousand
of population and new developments are assessed an amount depending upon the number of
residents it will add and the impact the new residents will have on the city's park acreage
standard. Locally, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have park fees on new development. The fees are
generally good tools when a city has large undeveloped tracts of land that are slated for
residential use. Collection of fees in a city with low demand for new housing construction or one
that is near build out will be minimal.
Advantages of Park Fees on New Residential Development
• Helps a park system keep pace with new facility construction to accommodate growth
• Good tool during times periods with rapid housing/population growth
• Augments REET spending on selected capital park projects
Disadvantages of Park Fees on New Residential Development
• Park fees on development can be viewed as anti-growth by the real estate and housing
development community
• Argument can be made that cost of fees is passed along to homebuyers making housing
within a city that charges fees less affordable for homebuyers
• Fee use is limited for capital projects related to growth impacts
• During a slow economy, park impact fee collections are negligible and may not aggregate
into enough funding to create a capital project during the 6 year time limitation.
o Staff time needed for collection(at permitting most often) and tracking of fee accounts
• Fees do not address M and O for new projects created through their use
• Difficult to justify renovation of existing facilities with fees on new development
3. Round Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar
The round up to the nearest dollar can be implemented with either and opt out or opt in feature to
prevent ratepayers from feeling put upon by paying for a service they may or may not use on a
frequent basis. Funds can be collected to subsidize M and O funding. There is some nexus in
that green vegetated park and street rain garden surfaces allow for infiltration of storm water run
off decreasing the flowage into the city sewerage system. There is no estimate at this time of the
amount of funding rounding to the nearest dollar would produce.
2
Advantages of Rounding Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar
• Opt out (or in) feature gives citizens flexibility on whether to pay into this funding source
• Provides a consistent and reliable income stream, although number of dollars may be small in
relation t6'the 6verall park M and O needs.
Disadvantages of Rounding Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar
• Staff time for accounting and tracking of funds
• May take years to build into a fund that can make a substantial impact
4. Formation of a Metropolitan Park District
Park Districts are created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance and
acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards and recreation facilities. While Washington State has
provisions for Park Districts, Park Service Areas and Metropolitan Park Districts to be formed as
municipal corporations, Metropolitan Park Districts (MPD) have been proven to be the most
durable and popular of these closely related mechanisms. MPD's have a higher maximum levy
amount than park service areas or ordinary park districts. In the last few years Pullman,North
Bend and Normandy Park have established MPD's. MPD boundaries may include territory
located in one or more cities or counties. MPD's may be formed by a resolution of local
government(s) involved by submitting a proposition to its voters. A second formation method is
by petition. Five commissioners are elected at the time of formation to serve 6 year terms. If the
district encompasses only one city or county jurisdiction the governing body or the city or county
may be designated to serve in an ex officio capacity as the board of the MPD. Normandy Park's
City Council currently serves as the Commission for the Normandy Park MPD. MPD's involving
more than one local jurisdiction may appoint members of their governing bodies to serve as
MPD commissioners. Inter-local agreements specify the method for filling commission
vacancies. MPD's are junior taxing districts able to levy up to 75 cents per thousand dollars of
assessed property value within its boundary (subject to $5.90 limit). Metropolitan Park Districts
may also issue debt obligations of up to 2.5 % of the assessed value of property. Debt must be
used for capital purposes and requires voter approval with a 60% super majority. One quarter
percent of the 2.5%debt may be issued by a vote of the district commissioners. If the MPD
board of commissioners is a separately elected body, they may be compensated at a rate not to
exceed $70 per day of MPD business not to exceed $6,720 per year.
MPD Advantages
• MPD has the greatest potential to raise level of Park Services than other mechanisms
• Allows voters to make decisions on the level of Park services they would like to support
• MPD with boundaries larger than the city could have greater economy of scale
• Removes cost of Parks and Recreation services from the city general fund (wholly or
partially)
MPD Disadvantages
• Need 60%voted supermajority to fund MPD operations
• MPD with boundaries larger than city limits would be subject to negotiations with involved
jurisdictions.
• Some city Park Department services fall outside the role voters may have of a traditional
park district(street side vegetation, cemetery, downtown plaza maintenance, etc.)
3
5. Revenue Generating ]Leases
There are close to 200 acres in the city park system. Existing leases (license,agreements) of park
property include the YMCA, Bremerton Ice Arena, Olympic Soccer& Sports Center,
Kitsap Community Resources Smith Playground, and Bremerton Farmer's Market. These leases
facilitate use of park land by organizations that provide valued services. The typical
consideration involves minimal cash payment for use of the property. Leases of park land for the
express purpose of generating cash flow is an option that may engender some community
opposition, however for the purpose of discussion it should not be completely overlooked.
Among the issues surrounding cash generating leases are the Parks Protection Act, which
requires a unanimous vote of city council; there must be a viable market for the property in
question for property to produce income; a number of city parks are encumbered by Federal
grant funds which complicate leasing; the length of the lease on any property where the lessee
makes a valuable improvements is likely to be in excess of 10 year in addition to renewal clauses
with minimal barriers; leases capable of generating significant income are likely to alter the
character of the existing park land.
Advantages
• Leasing a small percentage of overall park land base may provide additional resources to
maintain and operate the remainder of the park system
• Appropriate leases may drive park visitation (Richland, Wa. restaurant lease)
• Long term lease income is typically stable and rises with inflation
Disadvantages
• Citizen acceptance of leased parks
• Deed restricted and encumbered properties exist within the park system
• Requires unanimous vote of council at two public hearings
6. Parking Fees at High Demand Parks
Parking fees have been implemented to supplement park department finances at numerous local
and state and federal facilities. King County has parking fees for Marymoor Park use,
Washington State Parks experimented with a$5 parking fee for several years and opted to
change their system to a $30 per year discover pass and an option to pay $10 per car for one time
park visitation. The success of parking fees often hinges on the following elements: 1) Park
location and uniqueness of facility; 2) Cost of collection and enforcement; 3) Citizen acceptance
of parking fee; and 4)Neighborhood impacts from people seeking to avoid the fee by parking
nearby.
Advantages
• Ongoing source of revenue
• Does not impact park land
Disadvantages
• Citizen acceptance
• Neighborhood impact at some locations
• Cost of collection and enforcement
4
Attachment B
Bremerton Parks and Recreation
Funding Task Force Report
Task Force Members:
Chair Cary Bozeman, DeWayne Boyd, Leslie Daugs, Angela Flesher, Jon Flesher, Rev.
Richmond Johnson, John Larson, Virginia McBride, Teresa McDermott, Kathy Nelson, Kasey
O'Leary, Colleen Smidt, Marie Vila, Ken Ward, and Alexandra Welch.
Task Force Process Summary:
The Task Force met monthly between January and July of 2013. The first several meetings
contained reports by Parks and Recreation staff on current responsibilities and historical funding
and staffing levels overtime.
On March 21, 2013 the Task Force sponsored a widely advertised public meeting that attracted
approximately 50 residents who commented on their thoughts regarding the current state of
parks, parks facilities and programs. A summary of the citizen comments from this meeting is
attached to this report.
In April staff presented itemized service reductions that have taken place as a result of budget
cuts which began with the onset of the 2008 recession. The TF members prioritized restoration of
these items through a ranking process. Highest ranked service restorations included: 1) free
summer playground programs; 2)restoration of capital funds used for grant matching; 3)
restoration of park and street lawn, tree and shrub care programs; and 4) Funding to replace
obsolete or broken play area equipment.
At the May meeting members began an earnest debate concerning methods/options of increasing
park and recreation funding levels.
After receiving an overview of the city's 5 year general fund revenue and expense projection it
became evident that the general fund likely will not have the capacity to shoulder a substantial
increase in parks services.
The TF discussed the potential for a levy, for decreasing services to fit current budget constraints
and a multi-pronged approach to raising community volunteer involvement and outside funding
presented by TF member John Larson.
The TF membership did not achieve a consensus for a single solution to the Parks and Recreation
Services funding issue. However the majority of the group agreed with the following findings.
Parks and Recreation Department staffing has not kept pace with responsibilities.
Adopted City documents show Parks and Recreation has the same number of full time staff as it
did in 1977. Since that time responsibilities have grown to include a number of new parks,
streetscapes,plazas and administrative requirements.
1
Parks and Recreation Operating Budgets have been reduced from prerecession
level of$3.2 million to $2.6 million dollars.
While a portion of the reduction involves taking the aquatic center off of the operating budget
through contract management with the YMCA, inflation since 2008 in the cost of personnel
benefits, supplies and utility costs has amplified the budget reduction considerably.
There is a significant issue with deterioration of infrastructure at aging facilities
owing to a lack of capital investment.
The city's community center and senior center alone have identified improvement needs in
excess of one million dollars. The community center needs are identified in a report from Art
Anderson and Associates. Older parks including but not limited to Warren Avenue, Manette
Playfield, Forest Ridge,NAD and Sheridan have deficient play equipment, irrigation systems,
restrooms, parking facilities and sports court areas. Staff have done a fine job of aggressively
pursuing grant dollars to renovate Kiwanis, Lions, Matan, Stephenson Canyon and Blueberry
Parks. However the Department currently does not have capital funding to meet the match
requirements for state and federal grants. Without an influx of capital, facilities will deteriorate
to a point where they are not attractive for use and become unsafe in other areas (boat launches,
docks,playgrounds,picnic shelters, paved parking and trails. In addition deterioration of revenue
producing facilities (softball fields, soccer fields, gymnasiums) increases budget shortfalls by
hurting department revenue collection potential.
Community Volunteerism contributes toward a solution, however it will not solve
the park funding issue.
Volunteerism is at a high point for Bremerton with organizations taking on stewardship of Forest
Ridge Park,NAD Park, Kiwanis Park, Lions Park, portions of Ivy Green Cemetery and
Evergreen Rotary Park. The SUMS group (seniors uncovering money solutions) continues
volunteer staffing and capital support of the Senior Citizen Center. However volunteers typically
do not carry out the routine scheduled tasks of cleaning restrooms, emptying trash receptacles,
mowing large areas, repairing playgrounds, structural repair of buildings including parking lots,
HVAC systems, plumbing and roof repair. The Park Department also incurs costs by providing
trash bags, gloves, paint, small tools and other supplies to volunteers. The City should continue
to pursue volunteerism opportunities as a portion of the overall solution. In addition to the work
performed, it also raises awareness of the Parks and Recreation funding shortfall.
A compendium of ideas was brought forward as helpful steps to achieve an
adequate level of Parks and Recreation funding.
The plan brought forward by John Larson who serves both on the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the TF includes:
1. Creation of enterprise funds for revenue generating activities
2. Quantification of operating and maintenance expenses for specific parks and facilities
3. Increase volunteerism and begin a Park Foundation
4. Partnerships with outside entities to maintain parks and provide activities
5. Become active in the development of SKIA to develop park services
6. Emphasis the Parks and Recreation Department's role as a community and neighborhood
building block
7. Leverage funding from non-traditional sources like transportation, housing, storm water and
public health
8. Strengthen the Department's environmental stewardship role
2
9. Propose a strategic levy for high profile capital projects like the Sheridan Community Center
and Senior Center.
There was agreement that many of these steps would be helpful in raising the department's
profile, increasing revenue and volunteerism and could enhance the chances of future levy
passage. Many of the steps are in progress and others require considerable staff and resource
commitments that may not be available at this juncture in time.
A Voter approved levy will be needed at some point in time to augment current
funding for Bremerton Parks and Recreation facilities and Services.
There are concerns with the city's history of not having passed a stand-alone park and recreation
levy in its history. This may be related to lower comparative income levels and higher
percentage of transient population owing to military facilities. Timing with School, EMS and
Fire levies must also be considered. A reasonable levy not to exceed 30 to 40 cents per thousand
in assessed value, timed correctly with the right groundwork including polling and campaign is
likely a necessary park funding component.
3
- , West Sound Alliance
January, 2015
The West Sound Alliance is a remarkable partnership of municipal and
private entities. We began meeting in July, 2014 to address our joint traffic
congestion concerns on the west side of the Puget Sound. These
municipalities include Kitsap County, Mason County and Pierce County, as
well as all the major cities, transit agencies, ports, chambers of commerce
Pierce County and economic development agencies from the tri-county area.
All stakeholders representing the West Sound Alliance quickly realized that
' .. our united effort to secure funding for desperately needed transportation
asimprovements would be more successful than if we pursued our separate
a - - projects individually. Through months of meetings, the stakeholders of the
West Sound Alliance have refined a set of the most critically needed
transportation movements. The details of those transportation improvements
f are included in the attached. We also have a short introductory video which
highlights the needs for these transportation improvements.
G1G HOB --
'THE MARITIME CITY �4 We look forward to sharing with you the results of our efforts and trust you will
City of Dort Orchard
see the need to act on these requests expeditiously in order to preserve our
quality of life and stimulate further economic development in this region and
in the State of Washington.
SUCUAMI5H On behalf of the West Sound Alliance Steering Committee
TRIBE
Economic
KITSAP Development
—1 Council ®�
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
ALLIANCE
` Jill Guernsey Robert Gelder
� hMayor, Gig Harbor Commissioner, Kitsap County
C�i N1BER r4riA.„�.A4,B...Ell
I11 ®PORT OF
Patty Lent Randy Neatherlln
I iasTl o�1F(Lq. lin�'iJ�!
Mayor, Bremerton Commissioner, Mason County
.o
TranLtITMOANSITRITssoY
John Powers,
Executive Director, Kitsap Economic Development Alliance
WEST SOUND
y'x CYCLING CLUB
Coordination provided 6y. ! �'
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
360-377-4900
www KitsauReaionalCouncii.ora Lynn Longan
Executive Director, Economic Development Council of Mason County
West Sound Alliance
THE WEST SOUND
�_ 19
{ Atukiitia t
It tw A partnership among 19 jurisdictions and
F
° 6 Mari^° economic development organizations from
0°� rW Lyrm,on II
307 �,;f 3;! Kitsap, Mason & Pierce Counties ^' supporting
Paula.W et Sound .
o transportation investments in Washington
Sd�erdalr, patnhrl a '.; ' State's West Region:
Isla Seattle.,i
101 Rrn erOnrcharc-hard
PoMe:tej . For the regional and WA State economy
Bur;.;hey • For congestion relief
na aet:mr 16 v I.I. ac
r«d 7T �
• For critical industrial supply chain
303 Kci
GD
O ugh Grq H bar FCder:9l'War
Artnndal. ' 167 West Sound — Centered on Bremerton SR16/3
lake i.CDa_dgc:roud
S1iC1o° - Gig Harbor (South) to Belfair (West) to
1101 Lakewood Li>>itlf0,
South HO Kingston (North) and Bainbridge Island (East)
v �
Naval Base Kitsap anchors West Sound's Industrial Base
• Naval Base Kitsap is the 2nd largest Industrial Complex in WA State
* 31,000 employed
* $6 Billion Annual Impact
• Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is the largest Naval Shipyard in the United States
• 1/3 of WA State's Maritime Ship Building/Repair Jobs
• The West Sound is a Regional Leader in Engineering, Innovation, and Intellectual
Property
• National leader in employer-based apprenticeship programs
• The West Sound is to ship-building what the East Sound is to aero-space
Capacity & Connectivity supports Growth & Expansion of WA State Economy
• 60,000 daily commuters to and from the West Sound
• Currently home to 125,000 highly-skilled full-time workers in region's key sectors ^'
advanced manufacturing (maritime & aerospace), clinical health, high tech, tourism
• Primed for growth — already-zoned for industrial and residential expansion
Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Needed Now
• Invest in key corridors (see Strategic Corridor Investments on reverse side)
• Support critical WA State Ferry System serving a dozen Puget Sound counties
• Support multi-modal connectivity bike, pedestrian, transit, trails
• Narrows Bridge Tolls defer TNB Construction Sales Tax until bonds are paid.
Strategic Corridor Investments as of December 15. 20,114 10 YearLonger Range
Investment Plan Investment
1. SR 104 Kingston Re-alignment Based on 2015 Feasibility Study $1 M $8 M
SR 305 Corridor : Multi-Modal Safety/Congestion Relief Improvements
2. SR 305 Bainbridge Ferry Terminal to Agate Pass Bridge $15 M
3. Agate Pass Bridge Type/Size/Location & Financing Study (TSL) $2 M
4. Agate Pass Bridge Replacement Construction/Seismic Retrofit $164 M
SR 305 Agate Pass to Poulsbo(Hostmark)
S. SR 305 at Suquamish Way Intersection: Construction $4 M
6. Johnson Road @ SR 305: Construction $4 M
7. SR 305 Hostmark to South Poulsbo City Limits : Construction $8 M
8. SR 303 Transit Corridor: BRT/Light rail $8 M $32 M
SR 3 Corridor Improvements
9. SR 3 North: Poulsbo to Hood Canal Bridge—additional (holding) lane $5 M
10. SR 3 North:-Poulsbo to Hood Canal Bridge—additional (climbing) lane $5 M
11. SR 3 South: Mason County to Gorst—4 lanes $113 M
12. SR 3 South: SR 3 Sam Christopherson Intersections(N&S) $9 M
13. SR 3 to Puget Sound Industrial Area: Lake Flora, Imperial, Sunnyslope I/S $2 M
SR 3 North to Bremerton: Based on 2015 Feasibility Study
14. Gorst Interchange $23 M
15. Re-stripe two SR 3 Southbound lanes $4 M
16. Add 3 rd lane from SR 304 on-ramp to Gorst $158 M
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
17. Corridor Congestion Relief Study: SR 16—Tacoma Narrows Bridge—SR 302 $2 M
18. HOV lane extensions SR 166 to Gig Harbor: Phase I planning $5 M
19. HOV lane extensions SR 166 to Gig Harbor: Construction $140 M
20. Harbor Hill Drive Extension $12 M
21. SR 302 (SR 3 to 16) Improvements: EIS Completion $3 M
SR 161166/160 Corridor
22. SR 160 Sedgwick East to Bethel—4 lanes $10 M
23. SR 16 West to Glenwood Road via Sedgwick $15 M
24. SR 160—SR 166 Bethel Corridor $40 M
25. Port Orchard Gateway Project: Phase 1 (Tremont to Port Orchard Blvd) $17 M
Phase 2 (Tremont: Port Orchard Blvd to SR 166 ) $5 M
26. Belfair Bypass $80 M
27. Park& Ride System: 6 year:Silverdale; East Bremerton, Belfair $19 M
10 year. Port Orchard; Gorst; Mullinex; Noll Road
28.Transit Transfer Centers: 6 year. Silverdale; East Bremerton $8 M
10 year West Bremerton; Port Orchard
29. Passenger Ferry: Cross Sound to Seattle: Bremerton, Kingston, Southworth $36 M
(capital)
30. Passenger Ferry: Local Program: Annapolis Dock/P&R/Port Orchard Vessel $14 M
(capital)
Total 10 year Investment Plan $470 Million
Longer Range Investment $501 Million
West Sound Alliance Pro ' ect Ma
� p
;Island!
n -
Jefferson
Stakeholders:
Bainbridge Island Mason Transit Authority
Bremerton Port of Bremerton 'f
Gig Harbor Port of Allyn
Kitsap County Gig Harbor Chamber of Commerce 1
Mason County North Mason Chamber of Commerce
Pierce County Kitsap Economic Development Alliance
Port Orchard Economic Development Council of Mason County
Poulsbo Key Pen Parks "a 27
Suquamish,Tribe West Sound Cycling Club % ; ( 6 . 5
Kitsap Transit i �. 1 7 �J/.4 3 .
2
' 27 28 \
n
8
(j .27 29
28
[Kifsap :15 2830 1
2712 25 27
King:
13 26.14
22
27 l
'23' -
Mason 27 18 ( i
t i
o
a
-t21
® 20
117
Legend 1
Project Investments
10 Year Project Locations
= Road Improvement
Ferry Improvement • .Pierce
20 Year Project Locations
Arterials
®West Sound Alliance Boundary 'Thui;sfon;
F/ Miles
Grays
Grays Harbor 0 2.5 5 10 15 20
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 1 & 2
1. SR 104 Kingston — Re-alignment
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $1 million
Long Range Investment: $8 million
Project Description: Project Location:
This project will re-align the in-bound lane of SR104
from its current location,to parallel the SR104 out-
bound lanes. The intent is to concentrate all ferry
traffic away from the downtown core,thus providing 10 Kngston {
a safer walking community and an opportunity to
redevelop the business center into a vibrant area that /
attracts new businesses,people and recreation. AsPuget
found
part of the project,the ticket booths will be moved to
the north side of the ferry holding lanes,and Kitsap rf
County will assume jurisdiction over the 4 lane in- 4 ''ti, Ear. rda-r:i^gs1cr.
bound road that makes up the 5 blocks of downtown U -"-- -�-�
. _:y RoutE
Kingston. For too long the Kingston community has
been severely impacted by inbound traffic;this
project will allow the community to reclaim the road
0 0.25 0 3 '.les
and create public space for residents'enjoyment.
SR 305 Corridor: Multi-Modal Safety/ Congestion Relief Improvements:
2. SR 305 Bainbridge Ferry Terminal to Agate Pass Bridge
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $15 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The SR 305 Corridor from the Bainbridge �P
Ferry Terminal to Agate Pass Bridge project
($15M) project will upgrade three —
intersections that currently operate at a J
failed traffic level of service under WSDOT
standards with queues of greater than 1200
feet and contribute to heavy congestion and a 'z i
significant traffic delays throughout the
corridor. This project will implement �_.-. _�r
improvements such as transit jump lanes,
r
signal timing improvements, and turn lanes
to improve level of service at these a i � _
intersections. - �..�
1 -
3 & 4 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 305 Corridor: Multi-Modal Safety/ Congestion Relief Improvements:
3. Agate Pass Bridge Type /Size/ Location & Financing Study
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $2 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The existing Agate Pass Bridge was
constructed in 1950 and is considered
"functionally obsolete" and seismically-
deficient. The bridge is limited to two travel
lanes and is a significant barrier to non-
motorized transportation, with ;r
inadequate/substandard shoulder widths for
bicycling and narrow sidewalks and is not
able to accommodate separate high capacity
transit options. The Agate Pass Bridge
Type/Size/Location & Financing Study (TSL)
will evaluate alternatives for replacing and
potentially re-using the existing bridge.
SR 305 Corridor: Multi-Modal Safety/ Congestion Relief Improvements:
4. Agate Pass Bridge Replacement Construction / Seismic Retrofit
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $164 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The existing Agate Pass Bridge was
constructed in 1950 and is considered
"functionally obsolete" and seismically-
deficient. The Agate Pass Bridge
Replacement Construction/Seismic Retrofit
project($164M) will implement the selected
bridge replacement alternative as evaluated
in the Agate Pass Bridge Type/Size/Location
& Financing Study (TSL).
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 5 & 6
SR 305 Agate Pass to Poulsbo:
5. SR 305 at Suquamish Way Intersection — Construction
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $4 million
Project Description: Project Location:
AL
The project will improve mobility by reducing N
delay to transit riders while maintaining safe
operation of the highway, especially for park
and ride pedestrians. The project will
address the needs of a moderately-sized park 305
and ride transit peak PM advantages for the 400 PM
ferry corridor.
SR 305 Agate Pass to Poulsbo:
6. Johnson Road at SR 305 - Construction
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $4 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Johnson Road is a two lane local access road that will
be improved to collector status as part of Poulsbo's
Noll Road Corridor project.Johnson Road currently
N
intersects with SR 305 using stop sign traffic control.
There are no exclusive turn pockets or refuge lanes.
Cross traffic is delayed as drivers wait for gaps in
traffic traveling north or south on SR 305. Depending
on intersection study results,the intersection
improvements will include a signal or roundabout •
and shared use paths for pedestrians.The intent is to
improve safety and the level of service,and to
minimize conflicts at the intersection.There is also LIBERTY BAY
potential that the intersection could provide a
gateway entrance to the City.
1 '.
7 & 8 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 305 Agate Pass to Poulsbo:
7. SR 305 Hostmark to South Poulsbo City Limits ^' Construction
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $8 million
Project Description: Project Location:
SR 305 runs through Poulsbo from SR 3,providing a
connection to commercial development in Poulsbo,
the community of Bainbridge Island,and the State N �
Ferry terminal in Winslow. Four lane improvements
to SR 305 have been completed north of Hostmark
Street.South of Hostmark Street,SR 305 currently
has one travel lane and one HOV lane in eachSR , RK ST
direction with a speed of 40 mph.The proposed
project is a continuation of the existing 4 lane
improvements on the portion of SR 305 from
Hostmark Street to Noll Road.The project will
implement additional HOV lanes,center turn lanes, Liberty
and improved travel lanes,improving both traffic
flow and safety from Hostmark Street through the
South end of the city. SR 305 & NOLL ROAD. NE
8. SR 303 Transit Corridor: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) / Light Rail
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $8 million
Long Range Investment: $32 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Next step in the 2003 SR303 Bremerton to Silverdale
Transportation Corridor Study(WSDOT, USDOT, r E
Kitsap County,City of Bremerton and Kitsap Transit).
The Study examined vehicle, pedestrian,bike and _
transit options. Funding includes$8M for further q LE S-
study,right of way acquisition&engineering;$32M - '� ..
to construct BRT stations,roadway improvements
and to acquire vehicles. The project will improve Z.11F
Wheaton Way Corridor economic opportunities by -�s r '
improving transit service travel time,options and ks IIA
quality between housing&employment centers
identified in Bremerton&Kitsap County
Comprehensive Plans. it will facilitate Silverdale
residents'transit service to major Bremerton
ti
emalovers and to the WSF Bremerton terminal. �" �
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 9 & 10
9 & 10. SR 3 North: Poulsbo to Hood Canal Bridge - additional climbing & holding lanes
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $5 million — holding lane
Long Range Investment: $5 million ^' climbing lane
Project Description: Project Location:
These projects will construct a holding lane
northbound and a climbing lane southbound. �O'C,
1 �
The holding lane will facilitate movement ofe `ani •_�
traffic that is not turning west over the Hood
f
Canal Bridge,thus allowing free flow to Port 2
MBS Gamble
Gamble, Kingston and Hansville. L '
The southbound climbing lane will allow large
trucks, primarily logging to in trucks from the 1Q
Peninsula,to move out of the travel lane to
facilitate traffic heading to Poulsbo, Bainbridge
Island and points south.
Currently,when a bridge opening occurs,traffic 3
is backed up 3-6 miles south of the bridge for 45
minutes, virtually shutting down SR3. 07
11 & 12 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 3 Corridor Improvements - from Mason County to Bremerton
11. SR 3 South : Mason County to Gorst - Four lanes
Project Cost: Long Range Investment: $113 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic 3
Development Study(2012). Gorst:
Asa whole,the projects will improve the 16
corridor by adding intersection improvements,
i- -'Port
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the Orchard
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes
and east of Gorst by adding one or two lanes. 3
The project will provide for high-capacity transit,
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes.
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce
accidents,and the project will mitigate fish Mason
barrier and passage impacts at several stream County
Q ' 2 Mli
locations. ,
SR 3 Corridor Improvements -from Mason County to Bremerton
12. SR 3 South : SR 3 Sam Christopherson Intersections (N & S)
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $9 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic
Development Study(2012).
As a whole,the projects will improve the - 3
corridor by adding intersection improvements, tit
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the Gorst ��
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes
and east of Gorst by adding one or two lanes. - -
The project will provide for high-capacity transit, 3 16
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes.
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce
accidents, and the project will mitigate fish
barrier and passage impacts at several stream
locations. G 0 45 P.1 les
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 13 & 14
SR 3 Corridor Improvements —from Mason County to Bremerton
13. SR 3 to Puget Sound Industrial Area: Lake Flora, Imperial, Sunnyslope Intersection
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $2 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the Gorst
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic
Development Study(2012).
As a whole,the projects will improve the Imperial'
corridor by adding intersection improvements, In dustria I
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the Area.
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes
and east of Gorst b adding one or two lanes. SSI nn striae
Y g Industrial
The project will provide for high-capacity transit, Area
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes. 3
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce
accidents, and the project will mitigate fish Port of A
barrier and passage impacts at several stream Bremerton
7 1 2 Mies
locations. ,
SR 3 Corridor Improvements — from Mason County to Bremerton
14. Gorst Interchange
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $23 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic " Bremerton
Development Study(2012). 3
As a whole,the projects will improve the .a e,ie
corridor by adding intersection improvements,
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes �t
and east of Gorst by adding one or two lanes. `
The project will provide for high-capacity transit,
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes.
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce
accidents, and the project will mitigate fish 6
barrier and passage impacts at several stream Port
locations. Gorst Orchard
15 & 16 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 3 Corridor Improvements - from Mason County to Bremerton
15. Re-strip two SR 3 Southbound lanes
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $4 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the ;- ': �, ► '
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic _ _ Bremerton
Development Study(2012). 3 r -•
As a whole,the projects will improve the
0 0.25' 0.5 nips � , ; �. ��•:_�. aae
corridor by adding intersection improvements,
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the 0
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes Int
and east of Gorst by adding one or two lanes. n �
The project will provide for high-capacity transit,
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes.
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce
accidents,and the project will mitigate fish 6
barrier and passage impacts at several stream - Port
locations. Gorst Orchard
16. Add Third Lane from SR 304 on-ramp to Gorst +
Project Cost: Long Range Investment: $158 million
Project Description: Project Location:
These six projects were identified during the -
WSDOT study entitled The Bremerton Economic ` __ - •&emerton-;.:.
Development Study(2012).
3
As a whole,the projects will improve the
a 0.25 o rT.
corridor by adding intersection improvements,
potentially including roundabouts; increasing the
road capacity west of Gorst by adding two lanes �t
and east of Gorst by adding one or two lanes.
The project will provide for high-capacity transit,
worker/driver buses and HOV lanes.
Safety measures will be constructed to reduce i
accidents, and the project will mitigate fish 6
barrier and passage impacts at several stream Port
locations. Gorst Orchard
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 17 & 18
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
17. Corridor Congestion Relief Study: SR 16—Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 302
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $2 million
Project Description: Project Location:
In conjunction with WSDOT, perform an area m
wide highway capacity and corridor congestionm .l
� , � i SR:16 TACOMA NARROWS
relief study along SR 16 between the limits of the 'y� �,.i t `, BRIDGE TO SR 302
Tacoma Narrows Bridge and SR 302. Designed to I CONGESTION RELIEF STUDY
identify systematic corridor relief improvements ""I�� '-�j '
and a funding plan along this stretch of roadway, \ � ; ` N
in order to reduce and or eliminate both current
and long term congestion along this corridor. �J i' „., ,;• PUG ET
SOUND
This plan will look at identifying necessary -"
interchange improvements in conjunction with
mainline SR 16 improvements, as well as identify
a funding strategy plan for these improvements.
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
18. HOV Lane Extensions SR 166 to Gig Harbor: Phase I Planning
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $S million
Project Description: Project Location:
i1WY1K'- ,•
The 20 year adopted WSDOT Highway System
Plan includes for the extension of the core HOV
lanes that currently terminate at Olympic Drive
in Gig Harbor to the Bremerton/Port Orchard r
City line.These HOV lanes will provide for r I
congestion relief and added vehicular mobility to
not only Gig Harbor but also the greater Olympic I I
Peninsula and beyond. Phase 1 of these i
I, �
improvements will fund the remaining design
and permitting components,and Phase 2 will �rV
fund the construction of these added HOV lanes. r ,
HOV LANE EXTENSIONS
SR 166 TO GIG HARBOR t `.
I!^ _s}!'- —"IIIYERCMMIGE �I
19 & 20 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
19. HOV Lane Extensions SR 166 to Gig Harbor: Phase II "'Construction
Project Cost: Long Range Investment: $140 million
Project Description: Project Location:
t,wr t.t
The 20 year adopted WSDOT Highway System
Plan includes for the extension of the core HOV
lanes that currently terminate at Olympic Drive
in Gig Harbor to the Bremerton/Port Orchard 40
City line.These HOV lanes will provide for
congestion relief and added vehicular mobility to
not only Gig Harbor but also the greater Olympic
Peninsula and beyond. Phase 1 of these
improvements will fund the remaining design
and permitting components,and Phase 2 will
fund the construction of these added HOV lanes.
HOV LANE EXTENSIONS
SR 166 TO GIG HARBOR
rtwtt
INILNCNMVNt
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
20. Harbor Hill Drive Extension
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $12 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Extension of this local collector roadway will
Bumh>tm
extend the life and provide congestion relief to the recently completed $18M SR 16 Burnham-
Borgen Interchange.
i
This interchange is the major link to the recently
opened regional Saint Anthony's Hospital and '
the Gig Harbor North regional center. It is
estimated that this roadway extension will
provide at least a ten percent reduction in
vehicular trips using this interchange,thus
reducing congestion and extending the
� p HARBOR HILL DRIVE
interchange life. 4 EXTENSION
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 21 & 22
SR 16 Corridor Gig Harbor to Kitsap County
21. SR 302 (SR 3 to 16) Improvements — EIS Completion
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $3 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Fund the completion of the EIS that would
identify the preferred route for the realignment
of the congested SR 302 from SR 16 to the Kitsap
Peninsula. ,
SR 302 is an important east-west link both to Gig #10
Harbor and the Key Peninsula communities.
Work on the EIS was suspended in 2009 due to
lack of funding.
r,
SR 16 / 166 / 160 Corridor
22. SR 160 Sedgwick East to Bethel ^' Four Lanes
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $10 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The SR 160 Sedgwick East to Bethel Road project
would typically be a WSDOT project. But since
WSDOT has no plan to complete the corridor No Image Available
improvements previously considered, it will be
up to the City of Port Orchard to improve this
link to the viable Bethel Corridor. Widening
from 2 to 4-lanes with bike lanes, pedestrian
pathways and intersection control at Bravo
Terrace and Geiger Road are anticipated. This
project will not only provide for safety and
congestion concerns, but will provide for a
commercial access strategy for the future
redevelopment of the corridor.
23 & 24 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
SR 16 / 166 / 160 Corridor
23. SR 16 West to Glenwood Road via Sedgwick
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $16 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The SR 16 West to Glenwood Road via Sedgwick
is a project that will accommodate traffic and No Image Available
pedestrian demands due to the increased
development within the Sedgwick-Sidney Joint
Planning Area (JPA), but will also provide for
viable transportation connectivity from SR 16 to
SKIA,via Lake Flora Road.
This project would entail a complete street,
along with intersection improvements
throughout the corridor.
SR 16 / 166 / 160 Corridor
24. SR 160— SR 166 Bethel Corridor
Project Cost: Long Range Investment: $40 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The SR 160 to SR 166 complete street project will
provide for a continuous two-way turn lane, bike
lanes, pedestrian pathways and numerous No Image Available
controlled intersection improvements for the
entire Bethel Corridor, including the purchase of
associated lands for regional storm drainage
facilities required for the project.
This project will utilize much of the 2006 Kitsap
County Bethel Corridor Plan, but will be scaled
down and segmented to accommodate current
funding realities in the region and will provide
for safety, congestion and commercial access
concerns within the corridor.
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 25 & 26
SR 16/ 166 / 160 Corridor
25. Port Orchard Gateway Project
Phase I (Tremont to Port Orchard Blvd.): Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $17 million
Phase II (Port Orchard Blvd. to SR 166): Project Cost: Long Range Investment: $5 million
Project Description: Project Location:
The Port Orchard Gateway project consists of the
PSRC Legacy Tremont Widening project,which is
currently on the PSRC Contingency List,and the No Image Available
Phase 2 continuation of the downtown gateway from
Tremont to SR 166 via Port Orchard Boulevard.
The Phase I project addresses safety and congestion
concerns given widening from 2 to 4 lanes, bike
lanes,pedestrian pathways and 2 state-of-the-art
roundabouts.
The Phase 2 project will provide for a state-of-the-art
roundabout at Tremont and at SR 166(Bay Street)via
Port Orchard Boulevard.
26. Belfair Bypass
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $80 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Project implementation will provide safe and reliable 'I
Nd
access to regional 'obs,goods,&services;improve
efficiencies for all public service providers;and lowera
the current accident rate on SR 3 through the Belfair
g,
commercial area.
Constructing a bypass around the Belfair urban area
will provide a reliable high speed regional route-a J
two-lane 60 mph highway on a new alignment that
moves regional traffic from Shelton to Bremerton
through Belfair. f
It will reduce congestion and improve safety through
Belfair;ensure efficient movement of freight; reduce `�tl"`" ;'•
commute trip times between Kitsap and Mason f -
Counties;accommodate seasonal influxes of tourist ;
traffic and serve general traffic needs. It would also
serve as an alternate route during emergencies. t„
f�r Gw
27 & 28 West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments
27. Park & Ride System: 6-Year Investment: Silverdale, East Bremerton, Belfair
10-Year Investment: Port Orchard, Gorst, Mullinex, Noll Road
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $19 million
Project Description: ' Project Location:
Continues work to improve transit access by locating -
Park&Rides at strategic sites to serve lower density
housing areas,corridor choke points,and transit
centers. Park and Ride(P&R)projects: �,:,�;d �c :�:•
• In fast growing Port Orchard, a k
• Along SR 16&SR3 in Gorst,
• At the current Mullinex Park&Ride,
• At Noll Road along SR 305,
• In the Silverdale UGA(no current P&R facility),
• In East Bremerton(low density housing and no
additional P&R capacity to serve thousands of
forecasted new residents).
Improvements=more system access where land uses
don't allow fixed route bus operations. Park and
rides also limit vehicle traffic through congested
corridors by shifting modes from personal vehicles to
28. Transit Transfer Centers: 6-Year Investment: Silverdale, East Bremerton
10-Year Investment: West Bremerton, Port Orchard
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $8 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Construction of permanent updated transfer centers
to improve transit access for riders,bus operators,
and communities.Opportunities for joint land use,
e.g.housing,healthcare&transfer center
employment.Center location &design will include
alternative analysis—with public input. Kitsap Transit
property ownership will prevent disruptive periodic q
transfer center moves.Silverdale and East Bremerton
centers need to be constructed within six years to i
avoid rider impacts from surrounding development
pressures restricting center use. Port Orchard and ,� J T
West Bremerton centers need to be updated to meet ,l' :,�•
modern standards and increased demand from
growing communities. C
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 29 & 30
29. Passenger Ferry: Cross Sound to Seattle: Bremerton, Kingston, Southworth
Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $36 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Three routes were identified in the adopted
KINGSTON
Passenger-Only Ferry Business Plan& Long Range
Strategy by the Kitsap Transit Board in January 2015.
The routes and terminal locations were chosen based
on a number of factors,including infrastructure,
proximity to other transportation modes,and access.
• Bremerton:At the location of the existing Kitsap
Transit foot ferry terminal,located northeast of the
Washington State Ferries(WSF)terminal;the site of
the newly constructed A-float.
SEAME
• Kingston:At the location of past passenger-only
ferry operations-southwest of the WSF terminal.
•Southworth:At a proposed location southeast of BREMERTON
the existing WSF terminal.
SOUTHWORTH
30. Passenger Ferry: Local Program: Annapolis Dock/ Park & Ride / Port Orchard Vessel
• Project Cost: 10-Year Investment: $14 million
Project Description: Project Location:
Kitsap Transit operates two local ferry routes
connecting the Bremerton Transportation Center and
two ferry docks(Annapolis& Downtown Port
Orchard).The ferries provide a vital link for Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard employees,local commuters,
WSF customers,students and more-over 450,000
•M 3t.
annual passenger trips link the two cities.The 97 year +
old Carlisle II ferry needs to be replaced and
additional capacity is needed in case the SR 16 GorstT
r�vA "
Corridor is made impassable due to an unforeseen NA4Ak 5t1:
emergency. The Annapolis Dock is not ADA „
compliant and needs upgrades to meet ADA 1 ttJ911
standards and to achieve a state of good repair.
There is also a need for more park and ride capacity
at both docks,as they are overfull during weekdays.
West Sound Alliance Strategic Corridor Investments 22 thru 25
22. SR160 Sedgwick East to Bethel 23. SR16 West to Glenwood via Sedgwick
Project Location: Project Location:
W
P� ¢ SE SALMbNBERRY RD WEVERS LN 7m
� U
O SW BIRCH RD
¢ W
W
N
SE BLUEBERRY RD >-
3 m v Swh 9T
cA� ME SYLVISLN z O $ W
Y RD w
W SW HARPER D Z yid O
N N SE SEDGWICK RD Sa
� � m
SwHO wUJ
N w
� SJ
W
09)
h� VJl w OP SE MELINE RD 9TH
O ¢
4 w
W
r
If
ST m OO
9 O
F w
SE MELINE RD V O
is, < W
tP� Wul
w
SW D GW ODD RD
w
SR 160 Sedgwick East to Bethel SR 1 est to Glenwood Road !a Sedgwick
24. SR 160—SR 166 Bethel Corridor 25. Port Orchard Gateway
Project Location: Project Location:
ILE ILL DR
5S
W 0Q{
J '
W
S
H
W
m
av'
0
e
� Sr LUNDIAVE rp
0
a
IYSgT�H�y s o a
W z
W
N
7REM-NT w
LLI U
m
Phase 1
a CG
Z Ir y9
-5E- GWICK D 6�
SRI 0 Ra 166 Bethel Corr! or PzR Orchard roject