The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/16/2016 AGENDA FILE CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ❑ Phone (360) 473-5280 ***AMENDED *** NOVEMBER 16, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. BRIEFING: 5:00 to 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 A. Review of Agenda B. General Council Business (As necessary...) 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in the FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. MAYOR'S REPORT 4. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register B. Minutes of Meeting — November 2, 2016 C. Minutes of Budget Workshop — November 3, 2016 D. Minutes of Budget Workshop— November 7, 2016 E. Minutes of Study Session — November 9, 2016 F. Minutes of Budget Workshop — November 10, 2016 G. Confirm Reappointments of David Hedger and Patrick Watson to the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission H. Acceptance of Interagency Agreement IAA17527 (Interpreter Grant) between the State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts and the Bremerton Municipal Court I. Acceptance of 2017 Office of Public Defense Grant J. Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administrative Services for Court Security Services K. Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith, & Associates (MSA) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Interceptor Upgrades Project L. e : - -- ' e. - - - - - - - = - = - -- - - "' -- Committee and City Auditor" Item pulled... M. Professional Services Agreement with ARC Document Solutions (to digitally convert and index large plan sheets) N. Professional Services Agreement with BERK Consulting, Inc. (for annexation fiscal analysis and public outreach communication) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5312 to amend Chapter 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Sign Standards" B. Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for proposed FY-2017 City of Bremerton Budget (Public Comment Only—No Action...) C. Public Hearing on the proposed FY-2017 Budget (Public Comment Only— No Action...) D. Resolution No. 3279 to make a Declaration of Substantial Need for purposes of Setting the Limit Factor for the General Property Tax Levy and EMS Levy for 2017 Continued on back... E. Ordinance No. 5313 to establish the Amount to be Collected in 2017 by Taxation on the Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property within the City Limits of Bremerton; and Setting the Property Levy Rate 7. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 3280 to re-establish and amend City Rates and Fees for 2017 B. Ordinance No. 5314 to amend and re-establish 2017 Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other related services C. Amendment No. 2 to the Golf Course Management Agreement D. Resolution No. 3281 supporting a Capital Budget Request for the Quincy Square on 4m Downtown Revitalization Project Item added... 8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 111 Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations please contact the City Clerk at(360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting. BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO COMMENT SO YOUR NAMECAN BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD 4 40-R- P\L, cok-i 6A0e ,A- kers. CI u , I SOkdiklL SAryl iQT e 5fz QR OA k) � Yi46064- toodoL (A-14_0)c) &accs_s 0 P (.0(04,6 rj Neter 8/4S 6- „,/,,,4 TA-am- c,iyit-6 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK THANK YOU j'eSSKp(7- • It is happening again I agree with Eric Younger, Council President,that this issue should be handled by the State and Federal Governments but in the interim,we have to solve this issue. Homeless issues are starting to return Bags of clothing left around the building/sidewalks/alley Wet clothes just thrown in the alley/flower pots Homeless camping out in from of Kitsap Rescue Mission Patriot—2 weeks ago had an article about Kitsap Rescue Mission—how the Home Depot Foundation is providing supplies and labor to gut the 2nd floor and rebuild—KRM says it is needed because Port Orchard refused the homeless camp and we need to take care of veterans—ironically the previous week Mayor Lent gave and award and in the acceptance speech,we had only 5 homeless vets—so I am not sure who is telling the truth. Patriot—last week had an article about the Mayor of Poulsbo and the new no camping/ loitering on sidewalks etc. She stated they have 20K set aside to assist the homeless—reading between the lines I believe she inferred taxi cab fare to Bremerton. • We,the citizens and Government of Bremerton need to define our fair share of the homeless problem. Define Kitsap counties population =251,133 Define Bremerton population =37,729 Percent of Bremerton population verses Kitsap County population = 15.02% Define number of homeless in Kitsap County 523 (2012)—need to get better data—data from Homelessness, Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Fact Sheet Bremerton's share of the problem =79 people Coffee Oasis Teen Shelter(for kids 16—20 who are homeless)= 8 beds (Call 360-479-5123) Max Hale Center Housing Program offers 33 Single Room Occupancy units of permanent housing for homeless single adults (Data from Internet) Subtract the 33 and 8 from 79= 38 BREMERTON OUR RESPONSIBILTY FOR THE HOMELESS IN KITSAP COUNTY IS 38 PEOPLE TO BE SHARED BY THE SALVAGE ARMY AND KITSAP RESCUE MISSION—THAT IS 19 HOMELESS PEOPLE PER SHELTER. All shelters require a "conditional use permit" S Based on the permit,we set the conditions of what is expected and the number of people they can house We define if they violate these conditions,we will shut them down In closing, NO CHILD SHALL BE DENIED A BED IN A SHELTER—CHILDREN DO NOT COUNT FOR THE 38 PEOPLE WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. (This is my compassionate side speaking—kids didn't chose to be homeless—it is their parents or guardians and probably some unfortunate situations—so they ALSO GET A BED. II IP M l. F i tY �w .'m .4g-Nti „ate t (0" A Seedy Soirée benefits Seeds of Grace Building sustainable organic gardens in impoverished neighborhoods � -, around the world to feed God's Sheep. lu (&U001 o 'Pop 7''11111‘‘,4 , 107:114,0"1111541: S F E E GlaP 41)0" ;\I C)V ' • S A • CON /P0 E SSM W 4RT ST •„00,144 . . f ADMIRALTICKETS START AT $20 360.373.6743 1 admiraltheatre.org THEATRETo sponsor, contact Seeds of Grace at ....-:.--.......I'II PP-1' 360.797.5605 or infogdreanrbigaskbold.ory yir Zr) 0 SI-2 as E U I YoI 0'Cii) . r n• "si'e,-y, It ! 4. .. CID lig 1 j: In 4111 1 1St i.ir.....\itti 4 de.it: li -4.''' CL • . L't ' A ,(-4i b I HI �� 8 tw ^rte 'atlist-2, i'!,, i r ..., t"Iie,,.WM.{ i, :,,,,„r.0'., f. (B .. O 0.441' ' am ffff O •- .-§O . ...- *DUOO , E . . .44 :'. n .w �� 9 Jt - cd fl' ON�, s + j h C ms 0mi (j as -0 g ., ., „ 7 it ,.. .o',,,,_ ge,,, L O >, E / tea `mow -di NC �� s Y ca n , .� * N N en ... 5 • s,„ O ' o a i , I �' as con u� ,C13 \ ' 6 • % O O Y L C O ToN Q am' 4 .' ! cu O a) .Y N 1 co j w // SLS — o a> ca cn (73 c 112) n Allk 104,0monai . ami o Q • o l CC (E U p cn N >, a a Cl I. _,..,, d Y ai ca c0 o 4 O Q U v4 i r - O ca U t� .Q N 3 ca ca 2 • Air b.t 0 o o Y o U 3 a a) + 't�' D '' H e c`a n ami m a 'v-� Y O a> n cn -a 0 L > (ti UI 0C� O c H r -Awl ` T o (, N " Al _ 0 O Q U a) 6Q aTO L a) U c CO" O -0U) Q 0 cu o 0 = E o o Z o ca = ca M N CD = E = CO al �, C 0 0 O 000o `. < O N CO O CI) U-- _o ' I..L � � V2W a) �I— CCS � E E a) = off L07 co (1) 0 E - 0 = co 6 O /, Z V C3. 0. : ca vi. = ca Ire ..= ca C WW '" a) 1I cCO 0 ry o J 00 m a) o aOW v w c a) .. (AW o 'LWZ IDI CD 0 in C W I BIW EWH Qa Z al zW 0 C co Q� o > 0 } N I- -co -co � � >, (n () X _ -0 N W -Yo o 0 0 O H U - L U -0 L O Y �� J -Q cuo 0 N .c a) 0 CO J 0 cc � cr' Cl' O 0 cc � 01CUO 2 r5 -CO. CO x 5 O m X > _ O co x CP 0 _ } NC0_ O � (A - Q M Co Co '- Q l.n 1- r- v .. N 72.5 4- ppic, �- ct N N N U -Ca Z E -0-7:3 O L O L L o O L O (n i 0 -- Ca C 11 Z Q a. 0 ›- 4X8 I = CO = o N 0o oo oQ � � 8X8 12X12 0 N UD r-I ,-I *7,1: ;4,t,,..11, >i , i ! , ui I r i,i' '':''' '' 11''''''...-4....--7.4:-:''''''IP:f.:' 1 :til.!!!.:.',!:''.::' :1-,00 ,:..."',4:'44.i, �=w-iF ,',1'.. �4l - T SSY�' 7:: ';',V, +: •4; "---- --c,'' Sof ::,..,7'7:::, � t�, .,rte 4W Y .- ,i.;r, i mow, E' N =+ ,fi' _^„ U (.0 ,11 ay U � O 4 ' U 4. 41 i I I Lip N rI 0 N LID ri r-1 ri f 4 t IS 3Y b „,., ,, a ' ,„4 ' '''''''''''''::::11'''''::: ,.„ ., ... 0 ;18, %,..,, . .? 4 . .. „., ,. v,.,,......slt , ,...„..„,..1 i p 4 ., ‘,.., , ,,,,,, 4' -a4' SII, T's i; 1 r . + ,i . ,., r r crs'. , I • V, i .4A i S4 +n...'-"''' ''l' u .0 r T tai ILlsolo � r r �,' .• Ate# ►Iiia „ 6,.4‘ ce"` -,� ,,,,It,,,,,,,,,,,,-''lig: ' ' ''''''.11-4'4L'Iliii:744: ;4'44,4,4 xve M r-I 0 N li) I-I wir r-I r-I tV\ ) , . 1i3 ` ' I IIIIMITII AT lap WU. �.014 , _ ' No • \ IV �, U N ts , .4 .1 ,r '' € �z 0 e U ,:i3;11//`',.:.,,,1,;',41,0i'--;:tf,...,:;>..-14,7t .. '35)'' ' U tID Tr 0 N lD '-I c--1 I--1 Mt; Np jr D UU e*. U —' * a r s. r a, ..x N v pit `}�,6 5v a V O , 0,"?. in '.i1 .'-°'4 13 .d O S y w 4 s 707 0 Fu 0 4--1 L U N . 1 Cn C v o U 1 q 0 N(0 Ln - 1-1 w . 0 ▪ CD ,> D = V) U 4-, C (0 = CL 0 U N U V) .E bD � CD 0▪ 0 _ a) . U - D a) 0 O —1 U r . 1a : ~ 2 9 � yI: , {\ 2 °�° S.- • � /? > � 2 2 } � � » \ , :,. ./< . 2 : E� � � N . _; . \�/ \ Q Q %\ < .� .i U ii 2 , / \ '� w \ U � . r �� \ - - � � �� AGENDA BILL 5A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Claims & Check Register Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Shannon Corin Phone: (360) 473-5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1) Check#'s 370919 through 371105; and EFT's 16661 through 16718 in the amount of $1,988,546.86 2) Payroll for the pay period ending October 31, 2016 in the amount of$739,703.28 ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: Ei No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5B CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting — Study Session Date: N/A November 2, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is the summary of the City Council Meeting on November 2, 2016. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑General Business ❑Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 12/15/15 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 2, 2016 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, November 2, 2016, at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council Members present were Richard Huddy, Dino Davis, Greg Wheeler, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Council Member Jerry McDonald was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Shannon Corin; Legislative Assistant Lori Smith; and Kevin Matthew, Information Services Manager. A COUNCIL BRIEFING was held to discuss General Council Business at 5:00 PM in the Council Conference Room. At 5:30 PM the meeting moved to the Meeting Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Pat Sullivan followed by the invocation provided by Pastor Roger Hennigan of Apostolic Life Tabernacle. MAYOR'S REPORT— Mayor Lent announced... • The Week of November 12 to 20, 2016 was proclaimed National Hunger& Homelessness Awareness Week; and brought forward Kirsten Jewell, Housing Grants Program Manager to accept the proclamation; • In addition to the local gatherings, election night coverage would be telecast on BKAT for the first time on Tuesday evening starting at 8:00 PM on November 8; • Tickets are still available for "Maeji — The Sound of Korea" on Saturday, November 19 with a Dinner at 5:30 PM following by the Show at 7:00 PM at the Admiral Theatre; • Plans are moving forward for "Quincy Square", and shared drawings of improvements that will be made on 4th Street in honor of former Bremerton resident Quincy Jones; • A few thousand kids and parents were enjoying downtown for the Annual Safe Halloween Trick-or-Treat event; • Was pleased to see revenue from permitting fees were up for the month of October; • A very positive meeting was held with Captain Alan Schrader, Naval Base Kitsap Commanding Officer to discuss the association between the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the City of Bremerton; and • Encouraged the community to take part in events that are "Honoring All Who Served" at the Kitsap Fairgrounds on Veterans Day Friday, November 11. PUBLIC RECOGNITION — No comments were received... CONSENT AGENDA 5A— Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 370719 through 370918, and EFT-16615 through EFT-16660 in the amount of $1,778,881.53; Regular Payroll for the pay period ending October 15, 2016 in the amount of $703,384.61; and Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending October 31, 2016 in the amount of $52,721.52 5B — Minutes of Meeting — October 19, 2016 5C — Minutes of Study Session — October 26, 2016 5D — Professional Services Agreement with Prothman for Recruitment of Fire Chief 5E — 2016 to 2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 437 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 2 of 5 5F — Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering for the Oyster Bay Avenue North Transmission Replacement Project 5G — Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with AES Consultants for two Outfall Surveys to meet Department of Natural Resources Permit Renewal Requirements 5H — Procurement of Materials and Equipment for the Burwell Pedestrian Tunnel Improvement Project 51 — Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap Regional Library Terry Fessner provided comments in support of the Kitsap Regional Library. 05:47:40 M/S/C/U (Huddy/Davis) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. PUBLIC HEARING 6A— PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 3278 TO APPROVE THE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2017 CDBG/HOME ACTION PLAN: Sarah Achaoui, CDBG Program Administrator summarized that on September 7, 2016, City Council approved the 2017 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan outlining the CDBG and HOME funding allocation process. Based on that policy, the program's Project Review Committee has developed 2017 funding recommendations for Council consideration and approval. If approved, these submissions will be sent to the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) in the City's 2017 Annual Action Plan. Terry Fessner complimented Sarah Achaoui and members of the CDBG Project Review Committee for their efforts on these recommendations. Due to their appointments on the Kitsap Community Resources (KCR) Board, Council Members Wheeler and Daugs recused themselves from this discussion and abstained from the final vote... 05:57:56 Motion was made by Davis and seconded by Sullivan... Comments were made by Davis and Sullivan... 05:59:59 M/S/C (Davis/Sullivan) Move to adopt Resolution No. 3278 approving the 2017 funding recommendations to be included in the 2017 Action Plan to HUD; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the contracts with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented once all funding has been secured and HUD has approved the Annual Action Plan. Voted in favor of Motion: Davis, Huddy, Sullivan, Younger Abstained: Daugs, Wheeler Motion carried: 4-Yes; 2-Abstentions GENERAL BUSINESS 7A— DRAFT AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) DRAFT TRANSITION PLAN: Tom Knuckey, ADA Coordinator/City Engineer, explained that the American Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and implementing regulations, require public entities to develop a document called a "Transition Plan" that outlines the steps necessary to complete construction for compliance with ADA accessibility. The City has developed its draft plan, and this briefing will initiate the public process. Comments can be submitted to the ADA Coordinator by mail to 3027 Olympus Drive, Bremerton, WA 98310; by e-mail to Thomas.Knuckeyci.bremerton.wa.us; or by phone at (360) 473-2376. Public comments will be accepted until February 15, 2017. Comments in support of the ADA Draft Transition Plan were provided by Michael Bencik, ADA Committee; and Doug Wood, ADA Committee... City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 3 of 5 7B — INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES: Chal Martin, Public Works & Utilities Director, stated that this Interlocal Agreement provides a mechanism for Kitsap County to provide traffic engineering services to the City on a reimbursable basis, for 10 years, and can be terminated at any time by either party by providing 10 days written notice. Please note this agreement contains indemnification language not supported by the City Attorney. This agreement, included as a package request to Kitsap County, did not receive prior specific authorization by the Council as did the street striping and paving interlocal agreements. Therefore it is being brought forward here as a separate item. There were no comments from the public... 06:20:35 Motion was made by Huddy and seconded by Davis... Comments were provided by Huddy, Davis, Daugs, Wheeler, and Younger, and a question on clarification was asked by Wheeler, with a response provided by Mr. Lubovich... 06:24:15 M/S/F (Huddy/Davis) Move to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County for Traffic Engineering Services; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Davis, Huddy, Younger Voted opposed to Motion: Daugs, Wheeler, Sullivan Motion failed: 3-Yes; 3-No 7C — ORDINANCE NO. 5307 AMENDING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) CHAPTER 3.50.050 TO ALLOCATE STORMWATER FEES OR TAXES COLLECTED FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, pointed out that the proposed ordinance amends Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to allocate a percentage of stormwater fees or taxes to the Transportation Capital Fund for the purpose of funding street improvements within the City. Terry Fessner supported this item, but also hopes they continue to search for other funding. 06:29:45 Motion was made by Sullivan and seconded by Huddy... Comments were provided by Sullivan, Huddy, Daugs, Wheeler, Davis, and Younger... 06:43:00 M/S/C (Sullivan/Huddy) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5307 amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the allocation of stormwater fees or taxes collected for street improvements. Voted in favor of Motion: Huddy, Davis, Sullivan, Younger Voted opposed to Motion: Wheeler, Daugs Motion failed: 4-Yes; 2-No 7D — ORDINANCE NO. 5308 TO AMEND TITLE 11; ORDINANCE NO. 5309 TO AMEND TITLE 13; AND ORDINANCE NO. 5310 TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) RELATING TO LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT: Chance Berthiaume, Stormwater Coordinator, Water Resources, Public Works & Utilities, explained that the proposed Ordinances amend the Streets, Parks & Recreation, and Municipal Utilities provisions of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to make Low Impact Development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development. This is a requirement for all Western Washington NPDES Phase II Permittees beginning January 1, 2017. There were no comments from the public... City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 4 of 5 06:48:35 Motion was made by Daugs and seconded by Davis... Questions were asked by Daugs, Wheeler, and Younger; with responses provided by Mr. Berthiaume... 06:53:16 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Davis) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5308, No. 5309, and No. 5310 amending provisions of Title 11, 13, and 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Low Impact Development. 7E — CONTRACT AWARD TO PETERSON BROTHERS FOR GUARDRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON TRACYTON BEACH ROAD: Tom Knuckey, City Engineer, explained that staff have developed a design to construct guardrail on Tracyton Beach Road at the most critical locations. The project was initially bid using the small works roster process and only a single bid was received which exceeded the project budget. The project was then advertised and on October 12 a single bid was received which again exceeded the original project budget. The bid was from Peterson Brothers in the amount of$127,839.04, including sales tax. After the design and construction management was updated, the total cost of the work is now estimated at $156,000. Funding for the work will be from the Street Operating Budget in the TBD Department; there are sufficient funds available for the work. Terry Fessner believed this was too much money to spend on a guardrail, and urged the Council to look into less costly options or other funding sources. 06:58:15 Motion was made by Wheeler and seconded by Davis... Comments were provided by Wheeler, Davis, Daugs, and Huddy; and questions by Younger, with responses provided by Ms. Johnson... 07:05:50 M/S/C (Wheeler/Davis) Move to approve the Public Works Agreement with Peterson Brothers for the Tracyton Beach Road Guardrail Construction Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Sullivan, Wheeler, Davis, Younger Voted opposed to Motion: Daugs, Huddy Motion failed: 4-Yes; 2-No COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Pat Sullivan Congratulated recipients of the CDBG/HOME allocation, and particularly looked forward to the demolition of the dilapidated building on Burwell, across from the Police Department. Leslie Dauqs expressed how excited the students of Mountain View Middle School were to receive a visit by "Norb", the Number 1 Fan of the Seattle Seahawks, who participated in their pep assembly with the travelling-version of the Vince Lombardi Trophy won by the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl No. XLIX; looked forward to presenting a proclamation in recognition of the 81st Anniversary Celebration of the Filipino Community at an event this weekend in Seattle; encouraged citizens to be an informed voter and vote; provided a reminder to check on your friends, family, and neighbors during the upcoming colder month; and thanked Veterans and their families for their service. Greg Wheeler announced that residents can sign-up for updates on the very important Parking Study currently taking place at www.bremertonwa.gov/parkingstudy; shared how a new mobile app "See-Click-Fix" allows users to report street related issues like potholes, or they may contact Public Works Customer Response at (360) 473-5920 or Bremerton1(a�ci.bremerton.wa.us. He also encouraged attendance at the Annual Veterans Day Event "Honoring Those Who Served" believing in the importance of recognizing and honoring our Veterans and their families. Dino Davis enjoyed a trip to San Diego with Police Chief Steven Strachan where they had the privilege to board the USS Nimitz to witness up close the operations of the flight deck as well as the City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 5 of 5 day to day life onboard the aircraft carrier. He also conveyed the importance of our military because "freedom is anything but free", including thanks to his father for his service on the USS Lexington, in addition to all veterans. He also thanked Mr. Bencik and Mr. Wood for attending the meeting tonight to help bring awareness for the necessity to have an ADA Transition Plan. Lastly, he encouraged citizens to be involved, and reminded them that the Council to listen or to help if they had any issues they'd like to bring forward. Richard Huddy complimented City Engineer Tom Knuckey for his efforts with the ADA Transition Plan, and also thanked Mr. Bencik and Mr. Wood for their involvement, as well as for attending the meeting tonight. He also asked and was granted an exception to invite a guest in the audience to make an announcement outside of Public Recognition: Stanley W. Hess, Museum Curator, Valentinetti Puppet Museum, invited the community to attend their annual Fall Fundraiser on Sunday, November 6, 2016 from 2:00 to 4:00 PM in the Marina Vista Room at the Kitsap Conference Center. Tickets are available by calling $40 per person, and includes music, food, entertainment, special guests, and a silent auction. Mr. Huddy continued by stating how much he enjoyed attending a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Soroptomists Overlook with fellow Council Member Jerry McDonald in Port Orchard; thanked all of the local businesses that participated in the Safe Trick-or-Treat event downtown on Halloween; and lastly, shared photos of several historical events that took place in history on this day 1) in 1889 North Dakota and South Dakota entered Statehood; 2) in 1947 was the one and only flight of Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" (made of birch); and 3) in 1948 the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune incorrectly announced that Thomas E. Dewey defeated Harry S. Truman to win the Presidential election. He ended his report by stating tonight in 2016 will be a day in history following Game 7 of the World Series between the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Cubs. Eric Younger announced that the draft 2017 Budget is available on the City's website; and encouraged attendance at the Budget Workshops on Thursday, November 3; Monday, November 7; Thursday, November 10; and Tuesday, November 15 (but only if necessary) beginning at 4:00 PM in the Council Conference Room. The workshops are open to the public to attend but there would be no opportunities for input or participation. With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Council Meeting at 7:30 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ef LO I SMITH Legislative Assistant APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2016. Eric Younger, Council President ATTEST: Shannon L. Corin, City Clerk AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5C CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Budget Study Session Date: N/A Workshop — November 3, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is the summary of the Budget Workshop on November 3,2016. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑D No Presentation ❑Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑General Business ❑Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: [' Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table LI Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 12/15/15 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES Thursday, November 3, 2016 The Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room 603 of the DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Thursday, November 3, 2016, at 4:00 PM, with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council members present were Richard Huddy, Dino Davis, Greg Wheeler, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Council Member Jerry McDonald was absent. Also present were Financial Services Director Cathy Johnson; Assistant Financial Services Director Mike Riley; and Budget Analyst Caroline Tompson. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was present to provide staff support to the Council. President Younger announced that tonight's Budget Workshop was for the Council to hear presentations on the proposed 2017 Budget. It was further announced that this Budget Workshop was open to the public, but there would be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of these items is subject to change. Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, provided background on the 2017 budget process; outlined assumptions and considerations for revenues and expenditures; provided an overview of property tax, sales tax, utility tax, and charges for services; and covered changes within the General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, and Debt Service Fund. Council recessed from 5:40 PM to 6:17PM... Following comments and questions from Council Members, President Younger announced that the next Budget Workshop will be on Monday, November 7 beginning at 4:00 PM in the Council Conference Room... With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Budget Workshop at 7:40 PM. TrPred and Submitte. by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2016. Eric Younger, Council President ATTEST: Shannon L. Corin, City Clerk EY:SC:Is:cg AGENDA BILL � D CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Budget Study Session Date: N/A Workshop — November 7, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is the summary of the Budget Workshop on November 7, 2016. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑D No Presentation ❑Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑General Business ❑Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve [' Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 12/15/15 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES Monday, November 7, 2016 The Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room 603 of the DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Monday, November 7, 2016, at 4:03 PM, with Finance & Investment Committee Chair Richard Huddy convening the meeting. Council President Eric Younger arrived at 4:10 PM and presided over the remainder of the meeting. Council members present were Richard Huddy, Dino Davis, Greg Wheeler, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Also present were Financial Services Director Cathy Johnson; Assistant Financial Services Director Mike Riley; and Budget Analyst Caroline Tompson. Council Assistant Christine Grenier was present to provide staff support to the Council. Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, announced that the next Budget Workshop will be held on Thursday, November 10 to include wrap-up and to respond to questions; then provided presentations on the Internal Services and Enterprise Funds; followed by discussion regarding utility rates and department operations. Internal Service Funds: • Risk Management • Self-Insurance Health & Welfare Reserve • Employment Security • Employee Leave Liability • Equipment Operations and Maintenance • Equipment Rental & Reserve • Informational Technology Enterprise Funds: • Wastewater Operations & Capital • Stormwater Operations & Capital • Utility Debt Reserve • Gold Mountain Golf Course Council recessed from 6:00 to 6:34 PM... Following comments and questions from Council Members, President Younger announced that the next Budget Workshop will be held on Thursday, November 10 beginning at 4:00 PM in the Council Conference Room... With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Budget Workshop at 8:24 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: CHRISTINE G ENTER Council Assistant APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2016. City Council Budget Workshop Minutes Monday, November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Eric Younger, Council President ATTEST: Shannon L. Corin, City Clerk EY:SC:Is:cg AGENDA BILL 5E CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session — Study Session Date: N/A November 9, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is the summary of the City Council Study Session on November 9, 2016. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑General Business ❑Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 12/15/15 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, November 9, 2016 A Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at 5:03 PM, with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council Members present were Richard Huddy, Dino Davis, Greg Wheeler, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Christine Grenier, Council Assistant, was present to provide staff support. President Younger emphasized that the Study Session was open to the public but there would be no opportunities for input or participation; and announced that approved items by Council will be placed on the November 16, 2016 Council Meeting Agenda or as indicated... A. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED — The following items are budgeted items or subjects that have been raised with the appropriate Council Committee Members: 1. Confirm Reappointments of David Hedger and Patrick Watson to the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission Consent Agenda 2. Revocation of Tower Lease Agreement No. 4022 with Iglesia Pentecostal Visperadel fin Item was pulled... 3. Acceptance of Interagency Agreement IAA17527 (Interpreter Grant) between the State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts and the Bremerton Municipal Court Consent Agenda 4. Acceptance of 2017 Office of Public Defense Grant Consent Agenda 5. Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administrative Services for Court Security Services Consent Agenda 6. Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith, & Associates (MSA) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Interceptor Upgrades Project Consent Agenda 7. Ordinance to amend Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor" `Consent Agenda 8. Professional Services Agreement with ARC Document Solutions (to digitally convert and index large plan sheets) Consent Agenda 9. Professional Services Agreement with BERK Consulting, Inc. (for annexation fiscal analysis and public outreach communication) Consent Agenda 10. Amendment No. 2 to the Golf Course Management Agreement General Business B. BRIEFINGS & FULL PRESENTATIONS 1. Proposed Application for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Grant for Funding Year 2017 —Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development Information only 2. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Chapter 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Sign Standards" Public Hearing 3. Resolution to make a Declaration of Substantial Need for purposes of Setting the Limit Factor for the General Property Tax Levy and EMS Levy for 2017 Public Hearing (must be heard prior to Property Tax Ordinance) City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Page 2of2 4. Ordinance to establish the Amount to be Collected in 2017 by Taxation on the Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property within the City Limits of Bremerton; and Setting the Property Levy Rate Public Hearing 5. Resolution to re-establish and amend City Rates and Fees for 2017 General Business 6. Ordinance to amend and re-establish 2017 Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other related services General Business Council recessed from 7:15 to 7:30 PM... C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Public Works Committee Briefing (11/1/16 Meeting) — Chair Greg Wheeler o Public Safety & Parks Committee Briefing (11/9/16 Meeting) — Chair Leslie Daugs o Other General Council Business D. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Council Study Session at 8:47 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: /4 — CHRISTINE GRENIER, Council Assistant APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2016. Eric Younger, Council President ATTEST: Shannon L. Corin, City Clerk EY:SC:Is:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5F CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Budget Study Session Date: N/A Workshop — November 10, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is the summary of the Budget Workshop on November 10, 2016. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑General Business ❑Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 12/15/15 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES Thursday, November 10, 2016 The Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room 603 of the DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Thursday, November 10, 2016, at 4:00 PM, with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council members present were Richard Huddy, Dino Davis, Greg Wheeler, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Also present were Financial Services Director Cathy Johnson; Assistant Financial Services Director Mike Riley; and Budget Analyst Caroline Tompson. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was present to provide staff support to the Council. President Younger announced that tonight's Budget Workshop was for the Council to hold deliberations on the proposed 2017 Budget. It was further announced that this Budget Workshop was open to the public, but there would be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of these items is subject to change. Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, responded to questions and comments from the Council Members; followed by discussion on Public Works and Utilities operations and proposed utility rates. Council recessed from 6:00 to 6:33 PM... Council continued with discussion on proposed changes and their effects on the General Fund. President Younger announced that the Budget is scheduled for action during the December 7 Council Meeting... With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Budget Workshop at 8:25 PM. Pre ared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2016. Eric Younger, Council President ATTEST: Shannon L. Corin, City Clerk EY:SC:Is:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5G CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Reappointments of Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 David Hedger and Patrick Watson to the COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Lent Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The terms of Parks and Recreation Commissioners David Hedger and Patrick Watson have expired and the Mayor is seeking confirmation of reappointment to another three (3) year term. ATTACHMENTS: Applications available in the Mayor's office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): NA STUDY SESSION AGENDA: D No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointments of David Hedger and Patrick Watson to the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Commission. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5H CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Acceptance of Interagency Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Agreement IAA17527 (Interpreter Grant) COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 between the State of Washington Department: Municipal Court Administrative Office of the Courts and the Presenter: Dawn Williams Bremerton Municipal Court Phone: (360) 473-5242 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Court has been the recipient of an Interpreter Grant from the State of Washington, Administrative Office of the Courts for many years. This agreement is renewed on a yearly basis. This document is titled an Interagency Agreement but it more correctly a grant acceptance form. The terms of this Agreement are from July 2016 through June 2017 for partial reimbursement of interpreter services up to a maximum of$2,768.00. ATTACHMENTS: Interagency Agreement IAA17527 between State of Washington, Administrative Office of the Courts and Bremerton Municipal Court. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Receipt of up to $2,768.00 to recoup partial costs of interpreter expenses. No matching funds are required. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation E Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda E General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Interagency Agreement IAA17527 between the State of Washington, Administrative Office of the Courts and Bremerton Municipal Court; and authorize the Court Administrator to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny [' Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT IAA17527 BETWEEN STATE OF WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS AND BREMERTON MUNICIPAL COURT THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into by and between the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and Bremerton Municipal Court (Court), for the purpose of distributing funds for court interpreter services expenses to the Bremerton Municipal Court (Court). 1. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this contract, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Certified Interpreter" means an interpreter who is certified by the Administrative Office of the Courts, as defined in RCW 2A3.020 (4) or an interpreter certified by the Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ODHH) pursuant to WAC 388-818-500, et. seq. The names and contact information of AOC-certified interpreters are found, and incorporated herein by reference, at http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs orqs/pos interpret/. The names and contact information of ODHH-certified interpreters are found, and incorporated herein by reference, at https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/odhhapps/Interpreters/Courtinterpreter.aspx b. "Registered Interpreter" means an interpreter who is registered by the Administrative Office of the Courts, as defined in RCW 2.43.020 (6). The names and contact information of registered interpreters are found, and incorporated herein by reference, at http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs orgs/pos interpret/. c. "Qualified Interpreter" means a spoken language interpreter as defined in RCW 2.43.020 (2), or sign language interpreter as defined in RCW 2.42.110 (2). d. "Qualifying Event" means a court interpreted event meeting the criteria found in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference and for which reimbursement is sought by the Court. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to engage the services of the Court to improve the quality and availability of court interpreter services for Limited English Proficient (LEP), deaf, and hard of hearing persons in accordance with chapters 2.42 and 2.43 RCW. a. These funds are intended to address the Court's following needs: • Financial need - i.e., the gap between the Court's available financial resources and the costs to meet its need for certified, registered, and qualified interpreters; and • Interpreter need - i.e., the gap between the level of the LEP, deaf, and hard of hearing public's need for language access to the Court's (i.e., the level of interpreter need) and the available interpreter pool (in particular, certified, registered, and qualified interpreters in the Court's most frequently needed languages). IAA17527 Page 1 of 6 3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED a. The Court agrees to actively participate in the vision and structure for state funding of interpreter services, and to track and provide interpreter cost and usage data needed to demonstrate the impact of the funding. In particular, the Court agrees to submit electronically with each request for reimbursement, completed Interpreter Services Funding Data (ISF Data) reflecting interpreter services and costs. The Court will submit ISF Data representing both Qualifying and non-qualifying Events. b. Electronic data shall be submitted quarterly following the schedule as outlined in Section 5c below and using the online application and instructions found, and incorporated herein by reference, at: http://inside.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=controller.showPage&folder=courtinterpreter& file=interpreterStateFunding. c. The Court will ensure that the interpreter funding is used for reimbursement of costs paid to certified, registered, and qualified interpreters for Qualifying Events pursuant to Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. d. The Court agrees to partner closely with the AOC Interpreter Program, the Interpreter Commission, and neighboring courts to identify and implement innovations and best and promising practices for providing interpreter services (e.g., innovations in scheduling of interpreters, sharing of translated resources, training of staff and judges), with a view to improving interpreter services and the service infrastructure statewide. e. The Court may elect to pay for interpreter services that are not in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit A as set forth; however, such payments will not be reimbursed. f. The Court agrees to submit a written report to the designated AOC Program Manager by June 30, 2017, using the template attached at Exhibit B. The report will, among other things, identify and describe innovations and best and promising practices for interpreter services which have been implemented by the Court since July 1, 2016. g. As a condition of receiving funding under this Agreement, the Court agrees to implement, maintain, and annually review an AOC-approved Language Assistance Plan (LAP) as reported in response to Section 10 of Exhibit B. 4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The execution of this Agreement shall constitute a ratification of an earlier verbal agreement between the parties that is now set forth in writing. Accordingly, the beginning date of performance under this Agreement is July 1, 2016, regardless of the date of execution and which shall end on June 30, 2017. 5. COMPENSATION a. The Court shall be reimbursed a maximum of$2,768 for interpreter services costs incurred during the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. No reimbursement shall be made under this Agreement for interpreting services provided after June 30, 2017. b. The Court shall receive payment for no more than 50 percent costs for interpreter services as set forth in Exhibit A, and incorporated herein. IAA17527 Page 2 of 6 c. The Court shall not be reimbursed for interpreter services costs for Qualifying Events until properly-completed paper A-19 invoices and corresponding electronic 1SF Data are received and approved by AOC, pursuant to the following schedule: 1) Reflecting Qualifying and non-qualifying Events occurring between July 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016, must be received by the AOC no later than December 31, 2016. 2) Reflecting Qualifying and non-qualifying Events occurring between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, must be received by the AOC no later than March 1, 2017. 3) Reflecting Qualifying and non-qualifying Events occurring between January 1, 2017 and March 30, 2017, must be received by the AOC no later than April 30, 2017. 4) Reflecting Qualifying and non-qualifying Events occurring between April 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017, must be received by the AOC no later than July 31, 2017. d. If this agreement is terminated, the Court shall only receive payment for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this agreement prior to the effective date of termination. e. The Court shall, submit its paper A-19 invoices quarterly to: AOC Financial Services PO Box 41170 Olympia, Washington 98504-1170 The ISF Data shall be submitted electronically to the AOC as described in Section 3b, above, and in conjunction with the quarterly invoice. f. Payment to the Court for approved and completed work will be made by warrant or account transfer by AOC within 30 days of receipt of a properly-completed paper invoice and the completed ISF Data. g. The Court shall maintain sufficient backup documentation of expenses under this Agreement. h. The AOC, in its sole discretion and upon notice, may initiate revenue sharing and reallocatefunding among courts. If it appears the Court may not expend the maximum Agreement amount, the AOC may reduce the maximum Agreement amount. AOC may increase the maximum Agreement amount if additional funds become available through these revenue sharing provisions. 6. TREATMENT OF ASSETS AND PROPERTY The AOC shall be the owner of any and all fixed assets or personal property jointly or cooperatively, acquired, held, used, or disposed of pursuant to this Agreement. IAA17527 Page 3 of 6 7. RIGHTS IN DATA Unless otherwise provided, data which originates from this Agreement shall be "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by the AOC. Data shall include, but not be limited to, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books, magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and video and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the right to copyright, patent, register, and the ability to transfer these rights. In the event that any of the deliverables under this Agreement include material not included within the definition of"works for hire,"the Court hereby assigns such rights to the AOC as consideration for this Agreement. Data which is delivered under this Agreement, but which does not originate therefrom, shall be transferred to the AOC with a nonexclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others to do so; Provided, that such license shall be limited to the extent which the Court has a right to grant such a license. The Court shall advise the AOC, at the time of delivery of data furnished under this Agreement, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance of this Agreement. The AOC shall receive prompt written notice of each notice or claim of copyright infringement received by the Court with respect to any data delivered under this Agreement. The AOC shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the data by the Court. 8. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. 9. AGREEMENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 10. RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, AND REPORTS The Court shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, or audit by personnel duly authorized by the AOC, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law, rule, regulation, or Agreement. The Court will retain all books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement for six years after settlement, and make them available for inspection by persons authorized under this provision. 11. RIGHT OF INSPECTION The Court shall provide right of access to its facilities to the AOC, or any of its officers, or to any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington of the federal government at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this Agreement. 1AA17527 Page 4 of 6 12. DISPUTES Disputes arising under this Agreement shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative from the AOC, one representative from the Court, and a mutually agreed upon third party. The dispute panel shall thereafter decide the dispute with the majority prevailing. Neither party shall have recourse to the courts unless there is a showing of noncompliance or waiver of this section. 13. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this.Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 14. GOVERNANCE This Agreement is entered into pursuant to and under the authority granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. In the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: a. Applicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. This Agreement; and c. Any other provisions of the agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. 15. ASSIGNMENT The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising hereunder, is not assignable or delegable by either party in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 16. WAIVER A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the party and attached to the original Agreement. 17. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement, or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 1AA17527 Page 5 of 6 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be considered to exist or to bind any of the parties to this agreement unless otherwise stated in this Agreement. 19. AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT The program managers noted below shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Agreement: AOC Program Manager . Court Program Manager f Robert Lichtenberg Dawns Willi aro PO Box 41170 Administrator Olympia, WA 98504-1170 . flOdizifts.Ave h50 Pct.rK P robert.lichtenberg@courts.wa.gov Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 350-5373 dawn.nelson@ci.bremerton.wa.us 360-473-5242 AGREED: Administrative Office of the Courts Bremerton Municipal Court Signature Date Signature Date Cattle Dietz Name Name Administrator, AOC Title Title IAA17527 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON STATE INTERPRETER SERVICES FUNDING FUNDING CONDITIONS AND PAYMENT STRUCTURE The Court Interpreter Reimbursement Program funding conditions and payment structure shall be as follows: 1. General Funding Conditions The AOC will reimburse courts under this Agreement for the cost of AOC-certified, registered, or otherwise court-qualified interpreters appointed pursuant to RCW 2.42 and RCW 2.43 under the following conditions: A. Spoken Language Interpreters 1) Certified and Registered Language Interpreters Compensation for interpreters currently credentialed by the AOC in the certified and registered language categories shall be reimbursed for actual compensation paid pursuant to the payment structure for those interpreters as outlined in this Exhibit A. 2) Non-Credentialed Interpreters in Certified and Registered Language Categories If either (a), the AOC master interpreter list for certified or registered languages does not include any interpreters credentialed by the AOC for those languages, or (b), after diligent search, a registered interpreter cannot be obtained for that language, then reimbursement will be provided for actual compensation paid pursuant to the payment structure as outlined in this Exhibit A, Section 2, (see "Payment Structure"), for those interpreters, providing that the interpreter is found otherwise qualified on the record by the Court pursuant to Chapter 2.43. 3) Non-Credentialed Languages Compensation for interpreters for languages for which neither certification nor registration is offered will be reimbursed where the interpreter has been deemed qualified on the record pursuant to 2.43 RCW, B. Sign Language Interpreters Reimbursement for American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters appointed pursuant to RCW 2.42 will be authorized under the following conditions: 1) When the Court uses either: (a) An interpreter with an SC:L or comparable legal specialist certification issued by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf; or (b) An interpreter under contract or subcontracted with the Department of Social and Health Services, Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSHS, ODHH). Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 C. Salaried Staff and Contract Interpreters Reimbursement will be provided for salaried staff or contracted interpreters meeting the Qualifying Event conditions for the payment of credentialed spoken and sign language interpreters, as referenced above. D. Remote Interpreting The AOC will reimburse local jurisdictions for using certified, registered, or otherwise qualified interpreters operating by telephone or videophone when providing court interpreting services for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons or persons who rely on sign language for in-court proceedings and for services that are provided by the Court to the public outside of the courtroom. E. Scope of Interpreter Funding Reimbursement payment under this Agreement will only be made to the Court when the cost portion otherwise payable by the Court is paid out of the budget(or budgets, in the case of multi-court collaborative applicants)of the Court responsible for full payment. 2. Payment Structure A. Hourly Rate 1) Rate for Spoken Language Interpreters Subject to the maximum compensation allowable under this contract, the AOC will reimburse the Court under this Agreement for 50 percent of the hourly cost and the hourly minimum charges for services provided under this Agreement by AOC-certified, registered, or otherwise court-qualified interpreters. The AOC will reimburse courts not to exceed $25 an hour for interpreter hourly rates and hourly minimum charges. 2) Rate for Sign Language Interpreters Subject to the maximum compensation allowable under this contract, the AOC will reimburse the Court under this Agreement for 50 percent of the hourly cost and the hourly minimum charges for services provided under this Agreement. The AOC will reimburse courts not to exceed $25 an hour for interpreter hourly rates and hourly minimum charges. 3) Salaried Interpreters Subject to the maximum compensation allowable under this contract, the AOC will reimburse the Court for 50 percent of the cost of staff interpreters meeting the funding conditions for staff interpreters and will reimburse only for their provision of interpreter services, up to a maximum total salary of$60,000 plus 27 percent in benefits (i.e., state reimbursement= up to$30,000 of salary plus 13.5 percent in benefits). 4) Contracted Interpreters Subject to the maximum compensation allowable under this contract, the cost of contracted interpreters who are paid on an hourly basis will be reimbursed under the same conditions as in 2.A and 2.B. The cost of contract interpreters who are paid other than on an hourly basis (e.g., on Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 a half-day or flat rate basis) will be only reimbursed for the actual number of hours of interpreting provided for each Qualifying Event. 5) Telephone Interpreting Rate The AOC will reimburse local jurisdictions for up to 50 percent of the cost of using certified, registered, or otherwise qualified interpreters providing interpretation by telephone or videophone for LEP persons or persons who rely on sign language, up to a maximum of$1.64 per minute (with no minimum service time). 6) Hourly Minimum Rate Charges Where a minimum hourly rate charge up to $50 an hour and no greater is imposed for no more than the first two hours, reimbursement will be paid for half of such hourly minimum rate. 7) Excess Charges Interpreter rates in excess of$50 an hour or for hourly minimum rates exceeding the first two hours shall be the sole responsibility of the Court. 8) Hourly Rounding Hourly compensation for services provided shall be charged and paid in 30 minute increments. B. Travel Time and Mileage The AOC will reimburse Courts for up to 50 percent of the cost of interpreter travel time or mileage when such charges are in accordance with this Exhibit A and reimbursed as identified below in Interpreter Travel and Mileage Reimbursement. In such event, travel time and mileage charges will only be reimbursed for interpreters meeting the funding conditions. The AOC reserves the right to limit travel reimbursement to reasonable travel, based on known availability and location of certified, registered, or otherwise qualified interpreters. Exhibit A Page 3 of 5 INTERPRETER TRAVEL AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Interpreter mileage and/or travel time will be reimbursed as follows: 1. Mileage Interpreter mileage will be reimbursed in accordance with the prevailing Office of Financial Management (OFM) Policy and Guidance rate. The Court will notify interpreters of any change in the OFM rate before it becomes effective. Mileage will be reimbursed on a from "address of origin" ' to 'address of appointment"2 basis. The Court and interpreter will negotiate reimbursement for mileage traveled from the "address of appointment' to "address of destination"3 on a case-by-case basis. (NOTE: Courts are encouraged to have a consistent policy regarding the return trip.) In Eastern Washington, due to the scarcity of interpreters and vast distance for portal-to-portal travel, it is recommended that the Court reimburse the interpreter for mileage on an "address of appointment" to "address of destination" or roundtrip basis4. Interpreter mileage related to an appointment is billable if a required party fails to appear. "Failure to appear" means a non-appearance by the LEP or deaf or hard of hearing client, attorneys, witnesses, or any necessary party to a hearing, thereby necessitating a cancellation or continuance of the hearing. If the interpreter fails to appear, he/she will not be paid for mileage. Mileage related to appointments that have been cancelled where the interpreter has received prior notice of the cancellation is not billable. Address Milea•e Address of Mileage Address of Origin ••••1101.100" Appointment — > Destination $? Billable Subject to Negotiation 1"Address of origin"means the interpreter's home,office,or immediately previous appointment meeting place. 2"Address of appointment"means the courthouse or other location of the interpreter assignment 3"Address of destination"means the interpreter's home,office,or immediately next appointment meeting place. 4"Roundtrip"means from the interpreter's home/office to the appointed meeting place, followed by the interpreter's return to their home/office. Exhibit A Page 4 of 5 2. TRAVEL TIME Travel time will be reimbursed on a from "address of origin" to "address of appointment" basis. The Court and interpreter will negotiate reimbursement for travel time from "the address of appointment" to "address of final destination" on a case-by-case basis at the time the appointment is requested. (NOTE: Courts are encouraged to have a consistent policy regarding the return trip.) In Eastern Washington, due to the scarcity of interpreters and vast distance for portal-to- portal travel, it is recommended that the Court reimburse the interpreter for travel time on an "address of appointment" to "address of destination" or roundtrip basis. Interpreters must travel for either a minimum of sixteen (16) miles or for one-half hour in order to be eligible for travel time reimbursement. Exceptions to the sixteen (16) mile minimum requirement shall be made when the use of a ferry contributes to the one-half hour or more of travel time. Travel time will be reimbursed at a rate of one half the hourly interpreter rate for each hour of travel. Example: Interpreter traveled four hours to an appointment and the hourly rate is $50. One half of the hourly rate is $25. The calculation would be 4 x $25 = $100 for travel time. Distance Reimbursable origin > Mileage Only ppointment 0 -15 Miles Origin > Mileage or Travel Time* (but not both) Appointment 16+ Miles or half-hour travel* *Travel Time can be claimed only when traveling time is half hour (30 minutes) or more. Interpreter travel time related to an appointment is billable if a required party fails to appear. "Failure to appear" means a non-appearance by the LEP or deaf or hard of hearing client, attorneys, witnesses, or any necessary party to a hearing, thereby necessitating a cancellation or continuance of the hearing. If the interpreter fails to appear, he/she will not be paid for travel. Travel time related to appointments that have been cancelled where the interpreter has received prior notice of the cancellation is not billable. Exhibit A Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 8 Interpreter Reimbursement Program WASHINGTON Court Report Template COURTS This information is to help evaluate the effectiveness of the court interpreter reimbursement program. • The report should cover the period July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017. • The report should include and answer the following, and can be supplemented by other materials such as charts, spreadsheets, etc. • The report should be returned no later than July 31, 2017 to Robert Lichtenberg at Robert.lichtenberq a(�.courts.wa.gov. • The report should be no longer than three (3) pages. 1. Name of Court 2. Contract Number 3. Name of Person Completing Report 4. Provide a general description of interpreter services provided by your court. The report should provide information other than that provided on the quarterly Interpreter Services Funding Data (ISF) reports. For example, include information on charging litigants, types of hearings interpreters were provided for, use of staff interpreters, interpreter scheduling practices, pool of interpreters, etc. 5. Describe any collaborative efforts with other courts including, why the collaboration was sought, the impact of these efforts, challenges, and why the efforts were initiated. For example, sometimes neighboring courts work with one another to improve interpreting services including combined scheduling, implementation of consistent payment policies, shared staff interpreters, or coordination of interpreter calendars. 6. Identify two or three improvements made or promising practices realized by your court to improve interpreter services and/or to reduce expenses. 7. Identify any changes or improvements your court plans to implement in the future to improve interpreter services and/or to reduce expenses. 8. Identify any challenges or trends your court is experiencing with providing interpreter services. Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 9. Indicate if your court is regularly reviewing, monitoring, and updating your Language Access Plan (LAP). a. If so, who is responsible for this and how often is this accomplished? When was the LAP last reviewed and/or revised? b. If not, will your court be doing so in the future? When? What have been the impediments for doing so? 10. What do you see as the most significant areas of remaining need with regard to improving interpreter services? 11. Provide any additional information you would like us to know about your court's use of these funds and interpreter services in general. Exhibit a Page 2 of 2 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON �� CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Acceptance of 2017 Office of Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Public Defense Grant COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: Municipal Court Presenter: Dawn Williams Phone: (360) 473-5242 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Court applied to the Office of Public Defense for a grant and was awarded a grant in the amount of$11,500.00 for use in 2017. This money is intended to be used for improvements including continuing to adjust pay compensation for contracted attorneys, adding attorneys to reduce public defense caseloads and complying with the new Supreme Court Public Defense Standards. ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Acknowledgment and Face Sheet FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The OPD grant is a revenue source for$11,500 to be used directly for Public Defense costs in the City of Bremerton Municipal Court. These monies will be fully expended in 2017 to assist with public defense. There are no matching funds required. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the grant from the Office of Public Defense and authorize the Court Administrator to finalize and execute the grant agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 scArp 4 t7A ra l ? 4 1$0 WASHINGTON STATE (360)586-3164 Internet Email: opd@opd.wa.gov OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE FAX(360)586-8165 October 25,2016 Dawn Nelson Court Administrator City of Bremerton • 550 Park Ave Bremerton,WA 98337 Re: Chapter 10.101 RCW Application for Public Defense Grant Funds Dear Ms.Nelson: The Washington State Office of Public Defense(OPD)is pleased to announce the award of RCW 10.101.080 Public Defense Grant funds to the City of Bremerton. The award is$11,500 for use in calendar year 2017 for the following purposes: • Investigative and expert services for public defense cases • Implement and/or sustain grant-funded increases to public defense attorney compensation • Public defense representation at preliminary appearance calendars • Interpreter services for attorney-client meetings Enclosed is a short Grant Agreement for your review and signature by an authorized representative of the City of Bremerton.The signed Grant Agreement should be returned to OPD by December 1,2016 by postal mail or by email to hlicole.Dodge(liopd.wa.gov.A conformed copy will be sent to you for your records. The grant funds will be mailed to you in mid-December. If you want the check mailed to a different person or office, please let us know. If the City of Bremerton uses state BARS coding,these grant funds should be received under BARS revenue code 334.01.2X. Chapter 10.101 RCW requires cities awarded funds to demonstrate to OPD that they are either meeting the public defense standards referenced in RCW 10.101.030,or that the state funds are being used to make appreciable demonstrable improvements to public defense services. In addition,the Washington Supreme Court has adopted statewide Standards for Indigent Defense. OPD's Public Defense Services Managers are available to assist the city and its public defense attorneys in implementing the statutory and Supreme Court requirements.Please feel free to contact Katrin Johnson or George Yeannakis at(360)586-3164 ext. 108 and 102 respectively. We look forward to receiving the city's mid-year report in July 2016(as required in the Grant Agreement),as well as visiting your program at least one time during the year. Sincerely, Joanne Moore,Director Enclosures cc: Presiding Judge James N.Docter,Bremerton Municipal Court 711 Capitol Way South• Suite 106• P.O.Box 40957 •Olympia,Washington 98504-0957 Grant Agreement No. GRT17354 FACE SHEET WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 1. Grantee 2. Grantee Representative City of Bremerton Dawn Williams 550 Park Ave Court Administrator Bremerton, WA 98337 550 Park Ave Bremerton,WA 98337 3. Office of Public Defense(OPD) 4. OPD Representative . 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 106 Joanne I. Moore PO Box 40957 Director Olympia,WA 98504-0957 Office of Public Defense 711 Capitol Way South,Suite 106 PO Box 40957 Olympia,WA 98504-0957 5. Grant Amount 6. Grant Period $11,500 _ January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 7. Grant Purpose The Chapter 10.101 RCW city grants are competitive grants for the purpose of improving the quality of public defense services in Washington municipalities. (See Chapter 10.101 RCW.) The Office of Public Defense (OPD) and Grantee,as defined above, acknowledge and accept the terms of this Grant and attachments and have executed this Grant on the date below to start January 1,2017 and end December 31, 2017. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Grant are governed by this Grant and the following other documents incorporated by reference: Special Terms and Conditions of the City Grant and General Terms and Conditions of City Grant. FOR THE GRANTEE FOR OPD Name,Title Joanne I. Moore, Director Date Date SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY GRANT 1. GRANT MANAGEMENT The Representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications regarding the performance of this Grant. a. The Representative for OPD and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. b. The Representative for the Grantee and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. 2. GRANT AWARD AMOUNT The Grantee is awarded eleven thousand five hundred and 00/100 Dollars($11,500)to be used for the purpose(s)described in the USE OF GRANT FUNDS below. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF.GRANT FUNDS(as adopted in OPD Policy County/City Use of State Public Defense Funding a. Grant funds cannot be used to supplant local funds that were being spent on public defense prior to the initial disbursement of state grant funds. b. Grant funds cannot be spent on purely administrative functions or billing costs. c. Grant funds cannot be used for cost allocation. d. Grants funds cannot be used for indigency screening costs. e. Grant funds cannot be used for city or court technology systems or administrative equipment. f. Grant funds cannot be used for city attorney time, including advice on public defense contracting. 4. USE OF GRANT FUNDS a. Grantee agrees to use the grant funds for the following purposes: i. Investigative and expert services for public defense cases ii. Implement and/or sustain grant-funded increases to public defense attorney compensation iii. Public defense representation at preliminary appearance calendars iv. Interpreter services for attorney-client meetings b. Grantee agrees to obtain OPD's written permission before funds are used for any purpose other than those listed in Section 4a above. c. Grantee agrees to use the funds in calendar year 2017. If Grantee is unable to use the funds in 2017,the Grantee agrees to notify OPD to determine what action needs to be taken. d. Grantee agrees to deposit the grant check within fourteen days of receipt. 5. REPORT Grantee agrees to submit a written mid-year report to OPD no later than July 31, 2017 using the template found in Exhibit A. The mid-year report must be submitted along with the Grantee City's public defense attorneys' 2017 certifications of compliance. 6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of an inconsistency in this Grant,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: • Applicable federal and state of Washington statutes,regulations,and court rules • Special Terms and Conditions Of the City Grant • General Terms and Conditions of the City Grant GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY GRANT 1. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Grant contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Grant shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 2. AMENDMENTS This Grant may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendment shall not be binding unless it is in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 3. AMERCIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA)OF 1990,PUBLIC LAW 101-336,also referred to as the "ADA"29 CFR Part 35. The Grantee must comply with the ADA,which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 4. ASSIGNMENT Neither this Grant, nor any claim arising under this Grant, shall be transferred or assigned by the Grantee without prior written consent of OPD. 5. ATTORNEY'S FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Grant, in the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce Grant terms,each party agrees to bear its own attorneys fees and costs. 6. CONFORMANCE If any provision of this Grant violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 7. ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST In performing under this Grant,the Grantee shall assure compliance with the Ethics in Public Service, Chapter 42.52 RCW and any other applicable court rule or state or federal law related to ethics or conflicts of interest. 8. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Grant shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law,the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state of Washington, OPD, all other agencies of the state and all officers, agents and employees of the state,from and against all claims or damages for injuries to persons or property or death arising out of or incident to the performance or failure to perform the Grant. 10. LAWS The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws,ordinances, codes, regulations, court rules, policies of local and state and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended. 11. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS During the performance of this Grant,the Grantee shall comply with all federal, state,and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Grantee's non-compliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy,this Grant may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part. 12. RECAPTURE In the event that the Grantee fails to perform this Grant in accordance with state laws,federal laws, and/or the provisions of the Grant,OPD reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount to compensate OPD for the noncompliance in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. 13. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The Grantee shall maintain all books, records, documents,data and other evidence relating to this Grant. Grantee shall retain such records for a period of six(6)years following the end of the grant period. If any litigation,claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six(6)year period,the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims,or audit findings involving the records have been finally resolved. 14. RIGHT OF INSPECTION At no additional cost all records relating to the Grantee's performance under this Grant shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review,and audit by OPD,the Office of the State Auditor, and state officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this Grant. The Grantee shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose. 15. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Grant or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Grant that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of law and the fundamental purpose of this Grant and to this end the provisions of this Grant are declared to be severable. 16. WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant unless stated to be such in writing. Exhibit A Washington State Office of Public Defense 2017 Mid-Year Grant Report All cities that receive Chapter 10.101 RCW public defense improvement grant funding must submit a mid-year report to the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) no later than July 31, 2017. Please complete the following fields, attaching additional pages if necessary. Submit the completed report with copies of public defense attorneys' 2017 quarterly Certificates of Compliance by postal mail or email to: Postal Mail: OPD—Trial Level Program 711 Capitol Way, South, Suite 106 PO Box 40957 Olympia, WA 98504-0957 Email:opd@opd.wa.gov City: Report Date: Contact- Name: Email: Phone: Address: Full Award Amount: Amount Spent to Date: Permissible Use(s)of Grant Funds(See Section 4 of Grant Agreement Special Terms and Conditions) Description of How Grant Funds Have Been Used to Date: Exhibit A Washington State Office of Public Defense 2017 Mid-Year Grant Report Plans for Utilizing Remaining Funds by End of Calendar Year (If Applicable) Description of Impact State Funds Have Had on Local Public Defense Services Technical Assistance Requested of OPD(If Applicable) AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5J CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 County Administrative Services for Court COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Security Services Department: Municipal Court Presenter: Dawn Williams Phone: (360) 473-5242 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Court has an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administrative Services to provide security for the courthouse at 550 Park Avenue. The Court wishes to renew this agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement for Court Security Services #KC-458-16 and Attachment A FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $68,165.00. This is an increase of$4,500.00 from 2015. This includes a step increase resulting from a classification study the County had done as well as a 2% cola. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑D No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Court Security Services KC-458-16 between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County Administrative Services; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COURT SECURITY SERVICES KC-458-16 This Agreement is entered into by and between Kitsap County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY) and the City of Bremerton, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as the CITY). WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into agreements for the joint provision of governmental services pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and WHEREAS the County presently employs court security officers pursuant to the authority found in RCW 9.41.300(b) and pursuant to Resolution Number 82295 of the Kitsap County Superior Court executed August 25, 1995, and WHEREAS the City desires to contract with the County for the furnishing of a full time Court Security Officer to provide security and screening services for the City's municipal court. Now, therefore the County and the City mutually agree as follows: Section 1 GENERAL TERMS 1.1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide by this contract the services of a full-time Court Security Officer by the County to the City under the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement. 1.2 PAYMENT OF COSTS. The City shall reimburse the County the costs of providing the City with a full-time Step 11 Court Security Officer, the costs of which are as identified in Attachment A hereto. The costs subject to reimbursement shall be subject to such adjustments as may be provided for in the County's collective bargaining agreement covering its employees. Both the County and the City shall be bound by the terms and provisions of the County's collective bargaining agreement covering court services for Court Security Officers together with any future amendments or modifications thereto. The City shall provide coverage for the Court Security Officer during the regular morning, lunchtime and afternoon breaks of the Court Security Officer with an individual designated by the City. 1.3 SUPERVISION OF COURT SECURITY OFFICER. At all times, the Court Security Officer shall remain an employee of the County and shall remain under the supervision and control of the Kitsap County Sheriffs Office. The supervisory contact within the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office shall be Support Services Sergeant or such other Kitsap County Sheriff's employee as may be designated, 1.4 MODIFICATION. The terms of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified unless agreed to in writing by the County and City and such writing shall be executed with the same formalities as are required for the execution of this document. 1.5 APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court of Kitsap County. 1.6 WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of same, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 1.7 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and County regarding the subject matter of the contract. Any oral or written representations not incorporated in the contract are specifically excluded. Section 2 DURATION 2.1 This Agreement shall take affect on January 1, 2017 and terminate on December 31, 2017, The City will have the option of extending the initial term by a period of an additional 12 month(s) by giving written notice to the County of its intention to extend as provided in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. Section 3 INDEMNIFICATION 3.1 The City will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in defense thereof for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the City's acts, errors or omissions in connection with the performance of the contract. 3.2 The County will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in defense thereof for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the County's acts, errors or omissions in connection with the performance of the contract. 3.3 The obligations under Section 3 of this Agreement include, but are not limited to, investigating, adjusting and defending all claims alleging loss from action, error or omission, or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the parties, the parties' employees, agents or subcontractors. Section 4 NOTICES 4.1 All notices required by this Agreement to be given to the County shall be made in writing and personally delivered or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid to: County: Amber D'Amato, Director of Administrative Services 614 Division Street, MS-7 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Tel. (360) 337-4504 adamato(cco.kitsap.wa.us City: Dawn Williams, Court Administrator 550 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Tel.: (360) 473-5242 dawn.williams{a ci.bremerton.wa.us 4.2 All notices required by this Agreement to be given to the City shall be made in writing and personally delivered or sent by first class mail postage prepaid to the address noted above. Section 5 TERMINATION 5.1 Either party of this Agreement may terminate this Agreement by providing 30 calendar days written notice to the other party as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement. 5 2 If funding for the underlying project or matter is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way after the Contract is signed or becomes effective, the City may summarily terminate the Contract notwithstanding any other termination provision in the Contract. Termination under this provision will be effective upon the date specified in the written notice of termination sent by City to the County. No costs incurred after the effective date of the termination will be paid. Section 6 SEVERABILITY 6.1 In the event any provision of this Agreement is found invalid or contrary to law, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Dated this day of , 2016 Dated this—day of , 2016 CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Patty Lent, Mayor EDWARD E. WOLFE, Chair Bremerton City Attorney's Office CHARLOTTE GARRIDO, Commissioner ROBERT GELDER, Commissioner ATTEST: Dana Daniels, Clerk of the Board ATTACHMENT A TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COURT SECURITY SERVICES The City shall reimburse the County for the wages and employment-based benefits necessary and incidental to providing the City with a full-time Step 11 court security officer under the collective bargaining agreement covering court security officers. Those costs are as follows: • Wages, benefits, and employer's share of employment taxes (estimated to be $67,500 per year); • Uniform (estimated to be $400.00), and uniform cleaning (estimated to be $265.00 per year); • Overtime wages worked; • Cost of living increases (COLAs) authorized by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners subsequent to this agreement; • Travel reimbursement, if applicable. In addition, in the event the court security officer assigned to the City is absent for personal reasons (e.g., sick and annual leave), the City will pay the County a per diem rate consisting of the annual wages and benefits of a Step 11 court security officer estimated to be $259.62 per day (annual salary of$67,500 divided by 260 work days per year) to cover the sick and annual leave absences. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5K CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Professional Services Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Agreement with Murray, Smith, & Associates COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WVVTP) Department: PW&U Sewer Interceptor Upgrades Project Presenter: Tom Knuckey Phone: 360-473-2376 SUMMARY: The City has selected Murray, Smith and Associates (MSA) to provide consulting engineering and design services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Interceptor Upgrades Project. This selection is based on an evaluation of proposals submitted by three consultants selected from the MRSC Consultant Roster. The project consists of improving the hydraulic capacity of the existing undersized conveyance pipes that deliver raw wastewater to the headworks facility. Key elements include pipe sizing, alternatives evaluations to establish route and methodologies, final design and permitting, and construction management services during construction. A scope of work has been submitted and negotiated in the amount of $313,486. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project Description; 2) Professional Services Agreement; 3) Exhibit A; 4) Exhibit B; Exhibit C FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The work is included in the Capital Budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith, and Associates in the amount of$313,486; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 WWTP SEWER INTERCEPTOR UPGRADES PROJECT DESCRIPTION There are currently two undersized, ductile iron,gravity/pressure sewer lines that discharge to the headworks at the WWTP. The project will intercept these two lines upstream of the WWTP and install new 24"and 30" HDPE gravity/pressure sewers. The work will require either a new connection to the headworks or to the existing piping outside the headworks. Due to the depth of the sewer construction,trenchless construction may be required for the installation of the pipe. FIGURE: LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION W* $t 4 .„. , - ,, ,..„...A.,.. 6 g• 7.7(.9a7, : t.3 .. ., ",,,:ricjt: .1.7,7 I::: , 11 6-0'' 07 Li, LA A 0 4.1 .w 64 s 3 '''' �i.,* * v w� rim—r11. I W VTP HeadworkS 9 . .,„ , , ,. I trip, o ,, ,.. . . Page 1 1 .. w� n Jgr ,es MSA staff walked the anticipated sewer pipe alignments to better understand the terrain and construction limitations. • I dam :. 8 ,#o-. J Page 12 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WWTP Interceptor Upgrades The City of Bremerton ("City") and Murray, Smith, & Associates ("Consultant"), referred to collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement for professional services: I. Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated October 24, 2016, including any attachments thereto , attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only WWTP Interceptor Upgrades additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed as provided for in the work schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work as provided for in Section IX.A of this agreement. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed $313,486. Consultant's charges and bills shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit C. If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 1 of 7 IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-Consultants of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-Consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent Consultants to perform the same or similar work. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Consultant or its personnel. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant. V. Indemnification: A. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence,unless Consultant is conducting work pursuant to Subsection B below. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. B. Architects, Engineers and Any Other Professional Listed In and Performing Services Defined in RCW 4.24.115. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that Consultant's services provided pursuant to this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 2 of 7 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. Insurance: The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-Consultants. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU) if applicable; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate. 4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence/claim. 5. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than$1,000,000. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a"claims-made"basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 3 of 7 The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City's Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, Attn: Risk Management, 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. VII. General Conditions: A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to substantiate all billed amounts. B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Everett, Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk. C. Use of Photographs and Images. Consultant shall not use or distribute photographs or images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Consultant or provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent. Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 4 of 7 D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub-consultants in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Everett and Tacoma, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. G. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. City Address: Consultant Address: 345 Sixth Street 2707 Colby Ave, Suite 1110 Bremerton, WA Everett, WA 98310 98201 J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed waiver of any other right or power. K. Non-Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 5 of 7 M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court. N. Attorneys' Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. VIII. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification. IX. Termination: This Agreement shall remain in force until completion and acceptance of the services, terminated by written instrument upon mutual consent, or by the City of Bremerton for convenience. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and the non- performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within thirty (30) days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party. Any Notice by Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. A. Excusable Delays: The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. B. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 6 of 7 without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. X. Suspension&Debarment. For contracts involving Federal funding, Consultant hereby certifies,by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Consultant enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Consultant agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT (signature) (signature) By: By: (printed name) (printed name) its: its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Contracts\FORMS\Professional Services Agreement Form(2016).doc Rev 02-16 Bremerton/Murray, Smith&Associates November 2016 WWTP Interceptor Upgrades Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK for ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF BREMERTON,WASHINGTON WWTP INTERCEPTOR UPGRADES October 24,2016 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) has developed the following Scope of Work for engineering services for the City of Bremerton's (City) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Interceptor Upgrades project. The scope and budget have been developed based on the review of the site and existing documents, and a scoping meeting with City staff. The WWTP Interceptor Upgrades project consists of improving the hydraulic capacity of the conveyance pipes that send the raw wastewater through the plant and to the headworks facility. Several key elements of this project include: • Review and confirm Comprehensive Plan to determine flows • Size pipe(s) for conveyance lines • Alternatives evaluation to establish route and methodologies • Final design and permitting SCOPE OF WORK The proposed Scope of Work is for the WWTP Interceptor Upgrades project and is divided into the following work tasks: Task 1 Project Management Task 2 Field Investigations Task 3 Alternatives Evaluation Task 4 Permitting Task 5 Final Design Task 6 Bidding and Construction Services Task 7 Management Reserve Detailed descriptions of each major work task are described below. Task 1 —Project Management Under this task, MSA will manage all aspects of the project scope, schedule and budget. Project management services include: Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City ofBremerton 1 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 Communication: Regular correspondence and coordination with the City's project manager regarding the progress of the project, key project milestones and critical project elements. 1.2 Coordination with project design/permitting team: Discussions related to design, permitting, and schedule tracking will be held at regular intervals, as dictated by the level of project/permitting activity, to allow proactive action and coordination with the City. 1.3 Reporting: Monthly progress reports, invoices and schedule updates. Develop and maintain a Project Management Plan(PMP). 1.4 Kick-Off Meeting: Conduct kick-off meeting, prepare draft and final agendas and meeting minutes. Kick-off meeting will be combined with other subtasks for efficiency as noted in the following tasks. Assumptions: • Anticipate Notice to Proceed by November 23,2016. • Preliminary design phase will be completed by February 2017 • Total project duration will not exceed 12 months Deliverables: • Monthly progress reports, invoices and schedule updates. • Draft and final kick off meeting agenda and minutes. • Draft and final Project Management Plan. Task 2—Field Investigations The initial phase of this project will collect survey and geotechnical information to help inform the comparisons and decisions made in the preliminary design phase, and to support final designs. Subtasks include: 2.1 Survey: Collect topographic, utility, and property line survey information for design of the piping alternatives. The area of survey will generally follow the routing alternatives discussed to date, as well as the route of the existing 10-inch and 12-inch interceptors upstream of plant structures, capture upstream manholes, the storm ponds and ravine area at the north end of the plant, and the available lay down area at the south end of the plant. While the construction impacts are intended to avoid the WSDOT right-of-way, the survey will extend into the right-of-way approximately 50 feet to capture potential impacts outside of the plant property. 2.2 Geotechnical Analysis: Geotechnical analysis will include up to 4 borings each at a maximum depth of 40 feet; three observation wells will be installed to provide data on the depth to groundwater. The data from the borings will be used to evaluate the Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 2 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK feasibility of construction alternatives and provide recommended design criteria for the selected alternative. Alternatives may include: open trench construction(requiring active shoring) or trenchless construction, such as auger-boring, horizontal directional drilling (HDD), or microtunneling. Along the east side of the WWTP, geotechnical analysis will also provide design criteria for a retaining wall, up to approximately 10 feet tall, that may be incorporated into this project or a future, separate project. Other recommendations and construction consideration that will be included in the geotechnical analysis are: seismic design parameters, shaft shoring (if microtunneling is the selected alternative), groundwater control and discharge volumes for trench and/or shaft construction (based on correlations with grain size data and groundwater levels from the borings), excavation and backfill, and geotechnical instrumentation. 2.3 Natural Resources Assessment: Our team will review background information and visit the site to assess whether jurisdictional streams or wetlands, or other sensitive species or fish or wildlife habitats, are present in the potential work areas. Sources reviewed will include local, state and federal agency mapping websites. Based on information provided to date and the brief site visit conducted on September 23,2016, no jurisdictional wetlands and streams are expected. Assumptions: • City will call for design locates prior to surveying and geotechnical explorations. (MSA will provide backup information). • City will provide utility locate ticket number so the driller can complete the ticket duplication process prior to the start of drilling. • City will provide access for survey, natural resource investigation, and geotechnical field crews. • The boring locations are accessible by a track-mounted drill rig. An on-site meeting will be conducted with the drilling contractor to verify and review locates prior to drilling. No grading or site restoration will be required. • All borings will be completed on the WWTP site; no permits will be required to access the site. • City will accommodate geotechnical explorations to occur over three consecutive days, requiring only one mobilization. • No contamination will be encountered in the borings (only visual and olfactory screening for potential contamination will be performed during drilling). • No jurisdictional wetlands, streams, or buffers will be identified on the site. • Survey datum will be based on NAVD 1988 Deliverables: • Topographic project site mapping, including utilities and structures (as part of design plans) • Geotechnical Engineering report, draft and final (electronic version) Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 3 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK Task 3—Alternatives Evaluation This task will include development and discussion of alternatives, collaboration and workshop with City staff, and recommendations for alternative selection. Work will include collection and evaluation of preliminary information to establish options associated with the alternatives for routing wastewater to the headworks. Subtasks include: 3.1 Data Collection: Obtain and review existing records, drawings and data for the WWTP and basin flows. 3.2 Flow Development: Review and confirm Comprehensive Plan flows and current zoning to for currently undeveloped areas of significant size, primarily considering the Port Blakely Property. Where the zoning of undeveloped areas has changed significantly from the Comprehensive Plan, City will provide the new areas and flow factors from the Plan will be applied to produce revised flows. 3.3 Interceptor Routing Alternatives: Based on the review of geotechnical and survey data, identify viable construction methodology and routing alternatives for various areas of the project. Prepare figures for discussion with City staff. Include the cost, permitting, schedule, and risk factors of each alternative. 3.4 Headworks Tie-In Alternatives: Based on available design drawings and information provided by the City, develop conceptual alternatives for connecting the new pipe(s) to the headworks influent line. Schematics/figures will be developed to facilitate discussion with the City, along with estimates of cost, duration of interruption/flow diversion concepts, and risk factors for each alternative. 3.5 Preliminary Design Workshop: Preliminary information for both interceptor routing and headworks tie-in alternatives will be coordinated and presented in a workshop setting with City staff. Results of the workshop, both alternatives and any selected options, will be documented in the preliminary design report. Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 4 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK 3.6 Preliminary Design Report: Develop preliminary design report and 30-percent plans. Report will document the alternatives considered and direction moving forward. Plans are anticipated to include up to nine sheets, estimated as the following: • Cover sheet • Legend and abbreviations • Overall site plan • Plan and profile east side— 1 • Plan and profile east side—2 • Plan and profile west side— 1 • Plan and profile west side—2 • • Headworks Connection—Plan and Section • Detail sheet Assumptions: • The effort for confirming and developing wastewater flows is assumed to require up to 40 hours of effort. No Comprehensive Plan amendment will be developed. • One workshop at City facilities is included to discuss the flows,interceptor alternatives, and headworks tie-in as part of this task. Deliverables: • Workshop meeting agendas and supporting materials. • Workshop meeting minutes documenting key design decisions and alternatives analysis/preference(s). • Preliminary Design Engineering Report, draft and final Task 4—Permitting Permitting for the WWTP Interceptor Upgrades is anticipated to have requirements on only the local level. 4.1 Local Permitting (SEPA): The planned project will require approval from the local agency(the City) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Shannon & Wilson will prepare a SEPA checklist, anticipating that the eventual SEPA determination issued by the City will be a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). The cultural resources section of the SEPA checklist will be completed using publicly available resources (such as Department of Archaeology's WISAARD database), past studies completed in the project area provided by the City(2002 cultural resources assessment prepared by Shapiro and Associates, Inc.), and other site-specific information related to past grading and fill activities. Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 5 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK Assumptions: • The City will provide available cultural resource studies prepared for other projects in the area. A formal cultural resources assessment by a licensed archaeologist will not be required. • No supporting studies will be required for SEPA other than those specifically identified in this scope. • The scope includes providing the SEPA checklist and Site Development Application to the City. One round of responses to City questions or comments during review of the applications is included. • The project will disturb less than one acre of soils and will not have a discharge to a water of the state, thus an NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit will not be required from the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology). • A Public Agency Exception process, which may be required if geologic hazards are identified on the site, is not included in this scope. • No streams and wetlands are present on the site, so permits will not be required from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • City will pay any fees associated with permit applications. Deliverables: • SEPA checklist, draft and final Task 5—Final Design The objective of this task is to develop and produce final plans and specifications necessary to publicly bid and construct the project. Specifications will be developed following the 1995 CSI edition format(16 divisions) with the use of City standard language and front end contract documents. Anticipated work tasks for final design are outlined as follows: 5.1 60% Plans and Specifications: The preliminary design drawings will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the preliminary design review. Specifications, including full contract documents, will be developed to support the design. One design workshop/meeting will be conducted. Develop plans and specifications that are approximately 60% complete. Update cost estimate and project schedule. 5.2 City Review (60%): One electronic copy of the 60% complete plans and specifications will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. Submittal will include an updated cost estimate and project schedule. Meet with City to review 60% submittal and discuss review comments. Prepare and maintain a review log to document comments and responses. Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 6 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK 5.3 90% Revised Plans and Specifications: The plans and specifications will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the preliminary design documents, and refinements established through the design process. One design workshop/meeting will be conducted during the 90% design phase. Develop plans and specifications that are approximately 90% complete. Update cost estimate and project schedule. 5.4 City Review (90%): One electronic copy of the 90%complete plans and specifications will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. Submittal will include an updated cost estimate and project schedule. Meet with City to review 90% submittal and discuss review comments. 5.5 Final Plans and Specifications: Prepare final plans and specifications incorporating prior City review comments and further design refinements. Final design drawings are anticipated to include: • Cover sheet • Legend and abbreviations • Overall site plan • Erosion control and sequencing plan • Plan and profile east side— 1 • Plan and profile east side—2 • Plan and profile west side— 1 • Plan and profile west side—2 • Headworks Connection—Plan and Section • Excavation/pit details • Section/detail sheet— 1 • Section/detail sheet—2 • Restoration plan • Restoration details Assumptions: • City will provide standard specification and contract documents. • City will review the 60% and 90% submittal documents and provide comments within two weeks following the respective submittal. • Contract documents for review will be provided both in printed format and electronically (Specifications in Word and PDF, and drawings as PDFs and DWGs). Deliverables: • 60%plans, specifications, cost estimates and project schedule. • 90%plans, specifications, cost estimates and project schedule. • Final plans and specifications. • Meeting agendas and minutes. Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK Task 6—Bidding and Construction Support This task includes supporting the City, on an as-requested basis, with assistance during the bidding and construction of the project. The level of support provided will be at the direction of the City up to the budget amount available under this task. Anticipated support during bidding and construction may include: 6.1 Bidding Support: Attend pre-bid meeting including site walk-through. At the direction of the City and up to the budget amount respond to questions from bidders, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project,plans and specifications. Prepare addenda for use by the City in issuing addenda. 6.2 Construction Support: At the direction of the City and up to the budget amount review specific construction submittals/resubmittals, assist with issuing clarifications to the construction contractor, assist with review of contractor changes and change order negotiation, conduct site visits, and participate in construction meetings including the pre-construction meeting. 6.3 Trenchless Construction Inspection: Provide on-site inspection services specific to the active preparation and installation of pipe by trenchless technology. Engineer will actively monitor trenchless construction efforts and provide support for and coordination with contractor. 40 hours of effort is assumed for this task. 6.4 Construction Management and Inspection: Provide on-site and supporting construction management and inspection. This effort is estimated as one individual at approximately 45 hours per week for four months. This total of 780 hours is based on current salary rates and hours may be reduced based on salary adjustments to stay within budget. The total budget will be used as required by the construction progress. City will be updated monthly as to the budget remaining associated with this subtask. 6.5 Record Drawings: Update design drawings to account for any deviations identified during construction. Assumptions: • The City will take the lead in all tasks associated with bidding. • The City will provide on-site inspection and will take the lead in administering and managing all aspects of the construction contract and communicating with the construction contractor. • Up to 60 hours are allocated for review and comment on submittals by MSA. • Up to 24 hours are allocated for review and comment on requests for information (RFIs) by MSA. • Participate in 5 construction meetings/site visits as part of subtask 6.2. Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City of Bremerton 8 October•2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK • Up to four months of construction inspection, estimated at 45 hours per week, is allocated for this project. This total of 780 hours will be used as necessary during the construction of the project. • Only at the request of the City will MSA provide support services during project bidding and construction. • The City will provide markups for MSA to develop record drawings. Deliverables: • Record of bidder questions and inquiries. • Addenda documentation, as required for the City to distribute to plan holders. • Responses to submittals, clarification, changes, etc. as requested by the City. • Inspection reports. • Record drawings. Task 7—Management Reserve This task provides a management reserve allowance that may be used to address unforeseen tasks necessary for any of the project components. This allowance may only be utilized based on written authorization from the City's project manager. PROPOSED ENGINEERING FEES The fee estimate shown below is based upon the proposed scope of work, basic assumptions, and the project schedule, as outlined herein. Task FeeEstimate ,. Task 1 —Project Management $14,390 Task 2—Field Investigation $59,464 Task 3—Alternatives Evaluation $41,087 Task 4—Permitting $7,269 Task 5—Final Design $60,473 Task 6—Bidding and Construction Services $100,803 Task 7—Management Reserve $30,000 Total Project $313,486 Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. City ofBremerton 9 October 2016 WWTP Interceptor Improvements: EXHIBIT A—SCOPE OF WORK Exhibit B Project Schedule Anticipated Notice to Proceed—November 23, 2016 Anticipated Design Completion—End of April 2017 Anticipated Construction Completion—November 2017 PSA with MSA October 2016 WWTP Sewer Interceptor Upgrades . hi 1111111111111111111111111111111111 , 1! Department of Public Works& Utilities ". CITY of Memorunlum BREMERTON To: City Council From: Ned Lever Re: VVVVTP Interceptor Upgrades Date: November 14, 2016 Purpose: There was a question from Council at the study session last week regarding the current approach for the VVVVTP Interceptor Upgrades project. The request involved an evaluation which utilizes a storage basin to handle surcharge events as an alternative to replacing the 10" pipe and increasing the conveyance capacity of the system. It is the purpose of this memo to clarify reasons that the project is focused on pipe relocation and increasing the pipe capacity. Discussion: Project need: This project was initially identified due the 10" pipe size and the recurring surcharging in a manhole north of the WVVTP that resulted in repeated sanitary sewer overflows. There was also a concern with the fact that the 10" pipe is ductile iron and that it is located underneath two large hydraulic structures in the WWTP at a depth of 25 feet or more. Upsizing this pipe is the first step necessary to accommodate future flows from the Kitsap Lake area and from the future Port Blakely development. There is a project planned to redirect the flow from pump station KL2 to this basin. The capacity of the existing pipe is currently inadequate and will not accommodate the future planned flows. The City has also experienced numerous sewer force main failures where iron pipe was used. Failures have occurred on the Crosstown Pipeline, the Naval Avenue Force Main and on the Oyster Bay force main. In each case costly emergency repairs and ultimate pipe replacement was required. The depth of the pipe and the fact that it is located under both a secondary clarifier and an aeration basin are cause for significant concern. There is no easy way to verify the condition of the pipe since it is continuously surcharged and continuously flowing. If the pipe fails while still in service it will jeopardize both concrete structures in the VVVVTP. Finally, this pipe is located in a ravine which extremely limits the ability to excavate for a storage facility. Storage constructed upstream will require the purchase of property or easements and will not resolve the capacity issue associated with future growth and redirected flows from Kitsap Lake. 1 Conclusions: Replacing the pipe with a larger diameter HDPE pipe provides the necessary conveyance capacity increase for future flows and eliminates the risk associated with the inaccessible ductile iron sewer main located beneath VVVVTP structures. A storage facility could address the surcharging issue but a siting study would be necessary and this solution would not address the other concerns related to long term capacity and the risk to other infrastructure. 2 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5L. CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5311 amending Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal COUNCIL MEETING Date: Z/MAfie 1 Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Department: Legal Auditor." Presenter: Roger Lubovich Phone: (360) 473-2335 SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor." ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5311 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation 0 Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business 0 Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 5311 amending Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor." COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 ORDINANCE NO. 5311 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, repealing and replacing in its entirety Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor." WHEREAS, the Audit Committee,having rule making authority, is in the process of establishing operating procedures for its operations; and WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the Audit Committee and City Auditor are outdated, therefore, the City Council desires to repeal and replace in its entirety Chapter 2.18 in order to be consistent with the Audit Committee's operating procedures; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.18.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor" is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 2.18.010 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TERM Membership of the Audit Committee is established pursuant to Article III, Section 18 of the Charter of the City of Bremerton and consists of five (5) Committee members. Pursuant to Section 18,two (2) Council members and an independent Certified Public Accountant shall be designated by the City Council and two City of Bremerton residents shall be selected by the designated members of the Audit Committee. Audit Committee members shall serve terms as follows: (a) The Council President shall designate the Council Members to serve a one-year term, or less if the current term of their elected office expires earlier. Council Members may be re-designated for an unlimited number of terms. (b) The independent Certified Public Accountant shall be designated by the City Council by a majority vote to serve a three-year term and may be re-designated for an unlimited number of terms. (c) The two City of Bremerton residents shall be selected by the designated members of the Audit Committee to serve terms as established by the committee. 2.18.020 REPORTING. The City Auditor shall report administratively and functionally to the Audit Committee. In carrying out duties and responsibilities,the City Auditor shall have full, free and unrestricted 1 Chapter 2.18 Audit Committee and City Auditor access to all City activities, records, property and personnel, unless such access is prohibited by law. 2.18.030 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY The City Auditor has the same responsibility and authority as a department head in managing the finances and operation of the City Auditor's office. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2016 ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of , 2016 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2016 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2016 ORDINANCE NO. R:\Legal\Legal\Files\Current Active Files\Audit Committee and City Auditor\BMC 2.18 Auditor.docx 2 Chapter 2.18 Audit Committee and City Auditor AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5M CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Professional Services Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Agreement with ARC Document Solutions COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 (to digitally convert and index large plan Department: Community sheets) Development Presenter: Andrea Spencer Phone: 360-473-5283 SUMMARY: Currently Community Development has approximately 35,000 large plan sheets stored at the City's Olympus facility that must be relocated, preserved, indexed and ideally made electronically available. Consulting, advising and training for the indexing and retrieval system was one of many criteria considered in the bidding and selection process. ARC Document Solutions was the most responsible bidder for this project and comes with a wide range of experience in governmental records management. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bremerton and ARC Document Solutions FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $38,500. This amount is available in the existing 2016 Community Development Professional Services budget. No additional funding is required. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: i No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the Professional Services Agreement with ARC Document Solutions to digitally convert and index large plan sheets; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Plan Sheets The City of Bremerton ("City") and ARC Document Solutions ("Consultant"), referred to collectively as the"Parties,"enter into the following Agreement for professional services: I. Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated September 23, 2016, including any attachments thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only pursuant to Section VII.H of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed as provided for in the work schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work as provided for in Section IX.A of this agreement. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed Thirty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($38,500.00). Consultant's charges and bills shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit C. If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 1 of 11 IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-Consultants of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-Consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent Consultants to perform the same or similar work. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Consultant or its personnel. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant. V. Indemnification: A. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence,unless Consultant is conducting work pursuant to Subsection B below. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. B. Architects, Engineers and Any Other Professional Listed In and Performing Services Defined in RCW 4.24.115. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that Consultant's services provided pursuant to this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 2 of 11 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. Insurance: The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-Consultants. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate. 4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence/claim. 5. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than$1,000,000. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a"claims-made"basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 3 of 11 operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City's Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. VII. General Conditions: A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to substantiate all billed amounts. B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Tacoma, Washington and made available to the City pursuant to the Scope of Work described in Exhibit A. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk. C. Use of Photographs and Images. Consultant shall not use or distribute photographs or images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Consultant or provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent. D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub-consultants in Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 4 of 11 the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Tacoma, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. G. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. City Address Consultant Address 345 6`h Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed waiver of any other right or power. K. Non-Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 5 of 11 M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court. N. Attorneys' Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. VIII. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color,national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification. IX. Termination: This Agreement shall remain in force until completion and acceptance of the services, terminated by written instrument upon mutual consent, or by the City of Bremerton for convenience. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and the non- performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within thirty (30) days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party. Any Notice by Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. A. Excusable Delays: The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. B. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 6 of 11 without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. X. Suspension &Debarment. For contracts involving Federal funding, Consultant hereby certifies,by signing this agreement,that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Consultant enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Consultant agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT By: Patty Lent By: its: Mayor its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Dated: September 23, 2016 ARC Document Solutions will perform the following scope of work: Document Collection • Pick-up hard copy documents from City of Bremerton • Barcode and inventory documents. Provide inventory to City of Bremerton for reference during the conversion process. • Arrange transport to ARC's Seattle-based fulfillment center • Provide return of documents after imaging is complete and, if desired, polybag and label drawing rolls in waterproof bags Hard Copy Document Review and Repair • Make documents ready for scanning (unroll, unbind, un-staple, reattach / repair tears) or in the case of fragile plan originals, insert into clear film transport sleeves to roll through scanners. • Reassemble per client instructions Hard Copy Document Conversion • Image black and white plan documents into individual drawing files at a minimum of 200 dpi in monochrome (black &white) and save to PDF file format (.pdf). • Image color plan documents (where significant color or redline markings are present) into individual drawing files at a minimum of 200 dpi in color and save to PDF file format (.pdf). Document Organization and Preparation • Organize the imaged digital files into previously agreed to organizational folder structure • Name drawing files using naming convention determined by client. Search Functionality • The City of Bremerton team will be able to search for documents by the following criteria: o Building Name o Permit Number o Address o Year on Plans Document Upload and Platform Services • Upload prepared files to the SKYSITE InfoLink platform • Provide 50 GB of cloud storage with access for 5 Document Admin users and 10 active-search users Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT B Schedule Proposed Implementation Schedule and Milestones Stage Description Approximate Timeframe Agreement signed Service Agreement reviewed and signed TBD by City of Bremerton and ARC City of Bremerton's archiving workspace Platform services on the SKYSITE InfoLink platform is 1 week brought on-line created and the main admin user account is assigned Document Collection & Collection of drawings and inventory of 2 weeks Inventory drawing collection Conversion of hard Scan, name, index digital images begins 6 weeks copy documents begins Initial user access and Visual review of Work-in-Progress review of progress documents uploaded to client-accessible 1 week staging platform Digital files named, indexed, organized, Conversion completed and uploaded to meet previously agreed to 24 weeks formats Training & Onboarding Detailed admin and end user training 1 week Return/ Destruction of Final disposition of document originals as TBD Documents directed by client Timeframes listed above include time for document repair, routine equipment maintenance and calibration, and client response/clarification to questions. Client will be able to access scan images and track progress throughout the process. Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION Based on the following: Estimated Volumes Based on a visual inspection and measurement of the physical collection, ARC Document Solutions estimates the following volumes: • Large format Plan Sheets - 35,000 Schedule of Services ARC Document Solutions will provide City of Bremerton with our SKYSITE InfoLink Document Management platform. The costs of basic installation of the service and training are included in the initial seat-license agreement. Additional seat licenses, training and storage can be purchased as needed on a month-to-month basis. Information Management Services Extended Service Description #Units Per Unit Price Price Advanced Platform Svcs Allows for search of Set-up documents via textbased 1 $6,000 $6,000 search and indexed search Platform Hosting and Provide cloud-based storage 12 and user $190.00/mo $2,280.00 Storage access to digital documents months Convert paper plan sheets to Plan Sheet Imaging—B&W PDF 35,000 $0.75 $26,250.00 Naming of files to meet agreed- File Naming 1,300 $0.25 $325.00 to client specifications Indexing/Data Extraction Set-up for data extraction 1 $500.00 $500.00 Set-up Indexing/Data Extraction Manual extraction of key data 6,500 $0.13 $845.00 —Manual for search Document Prep Inventory,unbind and prepare 25 hours $40.00 $2,000.00 paper documents for imaging Pick-up of documents in single Transport(1 Trip) trip.Includes packaging and 1 $300.00 $300.00 transport 3 hours initial advanced Admin Training administrator training in- 3 hours $450.00 included person or via web 3 hours initial standard user User Training 3 hours $450.00 Included training in-person or via web Total Service Price $38,500.00 Price per month(after 12 months) $190.00/mo Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 10 of 11 Exhibit C — Compensation (cont.) Additional Services Extended Service Description #Units Per Unit Price Price Convert paper plan sheets to Plan Sheet Imaging— PDF in color(if significant TBD 1.95.1 drawing TBD Color color present—redlines,etc.) Add'I Training Training&Support(beyond TBD $150.00/hour TBD included training) Go Forward Services — Platform Services Extended Service Description #Units Per Unit Price Price Billed Monthly Additional storage on SKYSITE Per 10 Add'I Storage $15.00/month with platform InfoLlnk cloud platform GB services Additional Admin(Upload) Billed Monthly Add'I User Access— users on SKYSITE InfoLink Per User $18.001 month with platform Document Admin cloud platform services Additional Search Billed monthly Add'I User Access— (Read/Download)users on Per User $2.50/month with platform Search-only SKYSITE InfoLink cloud services platform Bremerton/ARC Document Solutions Digital Conversion and Organization of Large Format Plan Sheets Page 11 of 11 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 5N SUBJECT: Professional Services Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Agreement with BERK Consulting, Inc. COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 (for annexation fiscal analysis and public Department: DCD outreach communication) Presenter: Andrea L. Spencer Phone: 360.473.5283 SUMMARY: Since 2013 the City of Bremerton has contracted with BERK to conduct fiscal analysis for all the West Bremerton urban growth areas (UGAs): Charleston Beach, Gorst, Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, and West Hills. BERK has an industry-recognized expertise to conduct annexation impact analysis and local knowledge of Bremerton that makes them very qualified to provide professional services to the City. DCD proposes building on the work that BERK has already completed for the City and analyze the East Bremerton UGAs: Enetai and Tracyton. The proposed Professional Services contract also includes developing an online calculator that will be incorporated into the City's website that will assist residents to dynamically estimate the impact of annexation based on their unique household circumstances. This online tool will be for residents of both East &West Bremerton UGAs, and should prove to be a very useful tool for the City to utilize to help communicate with citizens. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement with BERK FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed contract amount is up to $51,250, which has been budgeted within DOD's 2016 Professional Services. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: o Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the professional services agreement with BERK Consulting Inc. for the annexation fiscal analysis and public outreach communication; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: n Approve ❑ Deny Table ❑ Continue I I No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting, Inc. ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH COMMUNICATION The City of Bremerton ("City") and BERK Consulting, Inc. ("Consultant"), referred to collectively as the "Parties,"enter into the following Agreement for professional services: I. Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated October 18, 2016, including any attachments thereto , attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only pursuant to Section VII.H of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed as provided for in the work schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work as provided for in Section IX.A of this agreement. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed $51,250.00 (Fifty-one Thousand Two Hundred-fifty Dollars). Consultant's charges and bills shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit C. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 14 If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-Consultants of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-Consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent Consultants to perform the same or similar work. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Consultant or its personnel. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant. V. Indemnification: A. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence,unless Consultant is conducting work pursuant to Subsection B below. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. B. Architects, Engineers and Any Other Professional Listed In and Performing Services Defined in RCW 4.24.115. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that Consultant's services provided pursuant to this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 2 of 14 IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. Insurance: The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-Consultants. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU) if applicable; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate. 4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence/claim. 5. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than$1,000,000. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required),which may be provided on a"claims-made"basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 3 of 14 The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City's Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6t1 Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. VII. General Conditions: A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to substantiate all billed amounts. B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Seattle , Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 4 of 14 • C. Use of Photographs and Images. Consultant shall not use or distribute photographs or images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Consultant or provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent. D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub-consultants in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Seattle, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. G. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. City Address Consultant Address City of Bremerton BERK Consulting, Inc. 345 6th Street, Suite 600 2025 First Ave., Suite 800 Bremerton, WA 98337 Seattle, WA 98121 J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed waiver of any other right or power. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 5 of 14 K. Non-Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court. N. Attorneys' Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. VIII. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification. IX. Termination: This Agreement shall remain in force until completion and acceptance of the services, terminated by written instrument upon mutual consent, or by the City of Bremerton for convenience. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and the non- performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within thirty (30) days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party. Any Notice by Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. A. Excusable Delays: The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 6 of 14 calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. B. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. X. Suspension&Debarment. For contracts involving Federal funding, Consultant hereby certifies, by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Consultant enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Consultant agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT By: Patty Lent By: its: Mayor its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 7 of 14 EXHIBIT A CITY OF BREMERTON ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS AND RESIDENT IMPACTS COMMUNICATION Proposed Scope of Work Updated: October 18,2016 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Further to our previous conversations around the City of Bremerton's annexation interests, a' , BERK is pleased to present a proposed „�S approach for: Evaluating the impacts to the City of annexing � � �� the East Bremerton (Enetai)and East "� � 4 Bremerton (Tracyton) (which includes the � '� x unincorporated island south of it,as � shown in the map to the right) potential annexation areas; y�� ,. a 'YY,"gyp, .i4 ;{ r Developing additional resident impacts � � handouts (modeled after those developed i for Gorst, Navy Yard City, Rocky Point,and c ton West Hills)for East Bremerton (Enetai) a and East Bremerton (Tracyton);and, �` #.� � z.._ Developing and embedding an online '� �� k '� •+ calculator on the City's website that will i..� �deyyr, Lsot, dynamically estimate the impact of I. ,{ r �-, ' .,7-yam, annexation on residents based on J f-, „,_ ' T{---.- + �' information about their unique households. Page 8 of 14 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) Annexation Fiscal Analysis For this study, BERK's efforts will be focused on understanding all of the short-term incremental impacts of annexation, as well as the significant fiscal impacts of annexation that will be realized over the long- term.These main elements include: • Updating the existing annexation model to include the City's most recent budget and development information and to ensure annexation analysis is responsive to the City's current fiscal situation. • Reviewing, analyzing, and modeling the short-term incremental impact annexation of East Bremerton (Enetai and East Bremerton (Tracyton), both separately and together, will likely have on City revenues,costs, and staffing. • Assessing longer-term fiscal issues and capital improvement needs related to annexation of East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) in a more qualitative way, with the intention of identifying long-term risks, opportunities, and uncertainties the City of Bremerton will need to consider. The study will be divided into five different tasks,which are outlined below. Task la: Update City of Bremerton Baseline Information As part of the Gorst Annexation Analysis, BERK conducted a baseline fiscal situation analysis for the City of Bremerton. A key step in the new annexation study will be to update the City's financial and development information used in that fiscal analysis to the most recent information available. This update will ensure that the incremental impacts of annexation are being analyzed compared to the City's current situation, as cost and revenue levels may have changed in the past year. This task will require collecting updated budget information from the City of Bremerton, as well as collection of housing, employment, and population data from available sources. BERK will work with the City's finance department to ensure that the City's baseline financial situation is accurately captured by the analysis. Task 1b: East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) Data Gathering and Land Base Analysis In Task 3 below, BERK will build a dynamic model of the City cost and revenue structure under different annexation scenarios.This model and analysis will be based on the updated data collected in Task 1, and a solid understanding of the City's fiscal structure. Revenues and costs in the model are driven by the current distribution of land uses and development in the City, East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton). This task will include an analysis of current land use and creation of reasonable development assumptions to understand longer-term impacts. Task 1c: Analyze Operating Fiscal Impacts of Annexation In Task 3 below, BERK will analyze the operating fiscal impacts of annexation on the City of Bremerton from annexation of both East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) individually, as well as City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 9 of 14 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED together. The analysis will focus in detail on the short-term impacts, and will highlight significant areas of potential long-term impact for the City's consideration. Specifically,the analysis will evaluate impacts for the following urban services: • Fire Service • Police Service • Emergency Medical Service • Transportation • Utilities, including power and telecommunications,which includes broadband where available • Stormwater • Potable water • Sewer • Solid Waste • Park and Recreation Facilities BERK will use the already developed City of Bremerton specific version of our firm's proprietary municipal fiscal model to analyze the City of Bremerton's current operating fiscal structure and the potential fiscal impact of annexation. This model will estimate operating costs and revenues associated with annexation of East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton), as well as the combined impacts of both annexation areas in aggregate. Task ld: Assess Capital Impacts of Annexation This task will involve a review of capital infrastructure needs developed for the Kitsap County UGA Remand process in 2012 and the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County's adopted capital and transportation improvement plans. BERK will supplement the review of these documents with phone interviews with key City and County departments to identify any new information that may not be included in completed planning documents. BERK will work with the City to review the draft assessment of capital impacts, and will identify areas of concern or adjustments that may be necessary under an annexation scenario. The analysis of long-term implications will not include detailed fiscal projections and quantified impacts. The findings will instead be an identification of future risks and opportunities for the major public services from a capital needs perspectives. Task le: Draft and Final Technical Memorandum Upon conclusion of the analysis, BERK will incorporate the findings into a technical memo, modeled after the City of Bremerton Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation Report, August 2015. Optional Task if: Fiscal Analysis of Annexing all Areas Together BERK will use the updated Bremerton annexation model to estimate the operating costs and revenues associated with annexation of all six annexation areas East Bremerton (Enetai), East Bremerton (Tracyton), Gorst, Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, and West Hills together. This will involve updating the development assumptions for the four West Bremerton annexation areas. Upon conclusion of the City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED analysis, BERK will incorporate the findings into an updated version of the City of Bremerton Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation Report,August 2015. Task 2. East Bremerton and East Bremerton (Tracyton) Annexation Resident Impacts Data Collection and Handout Development BERK will adapt the current impacts of annexation to residents analysis (developed as part of the West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation Study— Amendment 1) to include East Bremerton (Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) as additional potential annexation areas. BERK will collect the data necessary to generate the same analysis for that potential annexation area, and develop a handout for each area, using the handout template from that project such that the handout will be consistent with those developed by BERK for Gorst, Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, and West Hills. Task 3. City of Bremerton Annexation Internal Calculator Development BERK will adapt the current impacts of annexation to residents analysis (developed as part of the West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation Study—Amendment 1 and Task 1 [for the East Bremerton Enetai) and East Bremerton (Tracyton) potential annexation areas]) to develop a simple, easy to use excel calculator that will deliver real-time tax estimates (current and assumed based on annexation) organized and presented in an intuitive way. This calculator will include calculations for six potential annexation areas: Gorst East Bremerton (Enetai) Navy Yard City Rocky Point West Hill East Bremerton (Tracyton) Resident inputs (assumptions related to the resident's household) will be limited to those included as part of the previous annexation to residents analysis (for example home assessed value, monthly water usage, number of vehicles,etc.),with the ability to add up to three additional fields per annexation area. Constants (service, tax, and fee rates that would be held constant in calculations, but could be updated annually or as needed) will be limited to those included as part of the previous annexation to residents analysis (for example, property tax rates; waster service, tax, and pilot rates; and other tax and fee rates)with the ability to add up to three additional fields per annexation. Final outputs (resident's current costs, annexation costs, and comparison of costs [difference between current and annexation costs])will be will be based on calculations using resident inputs and constants (tax, fee, and service rates) for each annexation area. Final outputs will be limited to those included as part of the previous annexation to residents analysis (for example, property taxes, water costs, telephone taxes, etc.), with the ability to add up to three additional fields based on additional resident inputs and constants that may have been provided. The internal calculator will include all of the data necessary for online calculator interface development (Task 3) and will be a useful prototype of that tool.The final calculator will be designed to allow the easy incorporation of additional potential annexation areas as desired. It will also be designed to be easily updated by City of Bremerton staff as service, tax, and fee rates change. BERK will provide a short user City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 11 of 14 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED guide providing information on how to update the constants (including where to find the updated information) used in the calculator,which will allow City staff to update it as needed. Task 4. Online Calculator Interface Development BERK will collaborate with Praece to convert the internal calculator (Task 2) into an interactive online annexation calculator which will deliver real-time tax estimates (current and assumed based on annexation)and present them to the user in an intuitive web interface.This online calculator will include calculations for the same five annexations areas (Gorst, East Bremerton [Enetai], Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, and West Hills)as the internal calculator. The online annexation calculator will use the same resident inputs, constants, and calculations as the internal calculator to reach the same final values. BERK and Praece will collaborate with the City to adapt the internal calculator design into intuitive input and output interfaces for the web. This design could be laid out to mimic the residents' tax and service bills, if desired. The interface will also allow room for one to two short paragraphs of text discussing annexation impacts, which will be developed by BERK. Before web development work begins, BERK, Praece, and the City will approve a final design for the input and output interfaces before beginning web development. The final product will be a HTML5 based, intuitive,graphic, and visually pleasing online calculator hosted by Praece or a third party (selected and paid for by the City) and embedded on the City website and supported by the following web browsers: Internet Explorer 10+ Microsoft Edge 13+ Firefox 48+ Chrome 52+(and mobile) Safari 9+(and mobile) Praece will work with the City to develop custom, mobile-friendly responsive behavior for the embedded calculator by developing a custom script and iFrame layout to the current City website to further improve user experience on mobile. This will require Praece to have access to the code of the City website and/or personnel with similar access to collaborate with. City of Bremerton/BERK Consulting Inc. Page 12 of 14 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE The City of Bremerton Annexation Fiscal Analysis and Resident Impacts Communication Project is estimated to take approximately 10 to 16 weeks, after initial project kickoff. Page 13 of 14 EXHIBIT C BUDGET The budget for the City of Bremerton Annexation Fiscal Analysis and Resident Impacts Communication Project is not to exceed$47,250 and will be billed on a time and materials basis. Task Budget Task 1. East Bremerton (Entai) and East $14,000 Bremerton (Tracyton)Annexation Fiscal Analysis Optional Task 1f: Fiscal Analysis of Annexing $4,000 all Areas Together Task 2. East Bremerton Annexation Resident $3,250 • Impacts Data Collection and Handout Development Task 3. City of Bremerton Annexation Internal $3,500 Calculator Development Task 4. Online Calculator Interface Development $26,000 Expenses(2%) $500 TOTAL $47,250 TOTAL WITH OPTIONAL TASK $51,250 Page 14 of 14 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 6A SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 No. 5312 amending BMC Chapter 20.52 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 entitled "Sign Standards" Department: DCD Presenter: Allison Satter Phone: 360-473-5845 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Chapter 20.52 entitled "Sign Standards" regarding sign maintenance, illumination, permitted locations for Co-op Signs, and revisions to maintain content neutrality. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Memo: -Attachment I — Planning Commission Minutes (Workshops on June 21 and July 19, 2016, and Hearing on September 20, 2016) B. Proposed Ordinance No. 5312 -Exhibit A— Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation o Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business o Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5312 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 20.52 entitled "Sign Standards" regarding sign maintenance, illumination, permitted locations for Co-op Signs, and revisions to maintain content neutrality. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve [' Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 DEPARTMENT OF 444 4 ,V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT by -, "+maa+ yyYay �� _ MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Allison Satter, Senior Planner Date: October 31, 2016 Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Sign Standards SUMMARY Through the Comprehensive Plan update, Planning Commission and Staff acknowledged that the Sign Code will need to be reviewed pursuant to the Supreme Court decision of Reed v. Town of Gilbert in regards to content-neutrality. In addition to removing content-based standards, Planning Commission is also recommending amending the code to include provisions for sign maintenance and illumination, and expanding the location for Co-op Signs. Though Planning Commission has recommended approval of the code amendments, the Commission also passed an amending motion that requested Staff to conduct more research and propose additional language to the Sign Maintenance proposal (BMC 20.52.090(g)(2)) related to failing light components to be considered by Council. Within this memo to Council, Staff will provide narrative for all proposed changes for your consideration. OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL • Adopt the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission including the additional amendments proposed by Staff to BMC 20.52 Sign Standards. • Adopt the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Zoning Code with modifications. • Deny the Planning Commission's recommend changes to the Zoning Code. ATTACHMENT • Attachment I — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2016, July 19, 2016, and September 20, 2016. OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT DECISION: REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT Good News Community Church is a small church located in Gilbert, Arizona. The church rented space in temporary locations for its weekly service. It used small, temporary signs to invite and direct the community to its services. The Town of Gilbert's sign code imposed strict limits on the size, location, number, and duration of religious event signs, but did not impose the same restrictions on political, ideological, and homeowners' association signs. The church filed suit against the town in 2007, arguing that the town's sign code—both as written and as applied— regulated signs based on what they say and therefore violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found that the town's sign code was constitutional because they found it to be content- neutral and reasonable in light of the government's interests. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed and held that, even though an official would have to read a sign to determine what provisions of the sign code applied, the restrictions were not based on the content of the signs, and the sign code left open other channels of communication. The town petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for a writ of review and the Court granted the town's writ and heard oral arguments on the case. On June 18, 2015, the SCOTUS overturned the Ninth Circuit and held that the town's sign restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny because they were content-based restrictions—restrictions that were applied differently depending on the message of the sign. Because these restrictions were content-based on their face, the Court need not examine justifications or the town's motives in determining whether the restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny. Despite the town's argument that the restrictions do not single out a specific nonprofit or church but rather restrict all such signs for events, the Court stated that the First Amendment prohibits censorship of all speech on a whole topic. The Court also held that the restrictions cannot survive strict scrutiny because they had no compelling interest in adopting restrictions to only a certain type of sign. In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote that the Court's decision does not preclude cities from continuing to regulate signs, but it does stop them from restricting signs in an unconstitutional manner. Justice Kennedy and Justice Sotomayor joined in the concurrence. Justice Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion in the judgment in which he argued that content discrimination should have been the consideration and legal analysis, and that this case did not trigger strict scrutiny. He further argued that the presumption against constitutionality is too strong to use automatically and was unnecessary in this case as there was another, more appropriate method of analysis available. In her separate opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Kagan wrote that constantly using strict scrutiny to judge government-regulated communication is too restrictive and would water down the meaning of strict scrutiny. She reasoned that the risk that the government will limit the public's ability to debate ideas with these regulations is very low and does not warrant strict scrutiny. In this case, the restrictions were not brought on by any reason or need, therefore all the Justices concurred that they did not pass any level of scrutiny (according to Kagan, they didn't even pass a "laugh test"). Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined in Kagan's concurring opinion. APPLYING AND IMPLEMENTING REED The legal, planning, and development communities all agree that the Court's decision in Reed affects every local government in the country that regulates signs and has made many current sign codes, either in full or in part, unconstitutional. Pursuant to the Court's majority decision, sign regulations that are content-based on their face—by category, subject matter, speaker, viewpoint, or the like—face strict scrutiny by the court. To survive strict scrutiny a regulation must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. As the Court has frequently opined, regulations seldom survive a strict scrutiny analysis. Even though a regulation may be content-neutral on its face (i.e. as written), the Court's analysis does not end there. The regulation will then be subject to intermediate scrutiny by the Court. To survive an intermediate scrutiny analysis a regulation must be narrowly tailored to advance a substantial government interest. The Court will indeed look at the government's justification and intent for the •Page 2 regulation and if the underlying motive is ultimately content-based the regulation will be found unconstitutional (e.g. if a city prohibits a certain type of structural sign, and there is only one type of business or organization or person that uses that type of structural sign, the city would bear the burden of demonstrating how the regulation is not intended to target only that category and/or speaker). The Court's decision in Reed presents a marked change and restriction on how cities may regulate signs. However, the regulation of signs should be viewed not as a land use regulation, but rather a regulation of speech, and under that framing the Court's decision in Reed arguably becomes exponentially more palatable to implement and enforce. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION NARRATIVE With the background of the Supreme Court decision to consider, Planning Commission and Staff reviewed the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.52 for compliance. In addition, the recommendation also includes some additional proposed amendments which resulted from public comments throughout the process. The Commission also recognized the need for new requirements to address changing sign technology. The following is a summary of the proposed changes: • BMC 2.42 Definitions o Included a provision about mobile signage as it is becoming more prevalent. The picture to the right is an example of the such signage. Portable signs are regulated in BMC 20.52.160. • BMC 20.52.040 Exempt Signs: , o Revisions to Real Estate, temporary construction signage and renaming "Political Signs"to "Noncommercial Speech" signs to ""w- comply with the Supreme Court decision on content-neutrality. tir • BMC 20.52.050 Prohibited Signs o The Planning Commission is proposing that readerboard signs to be allowed to change copy/text at eight seconds intervals versus the current two seconds which would be consistent with Kitsap County(as can be seen in the chart below. Readerboards can be distracting to drivers, thus movement should be limited. Please note the current code does not allow signs to be moving, animated or flash. City Time Limit to Changing of copy/text/image to a Readerboard Kitsap 8 seconds Port Orchard 5 seconds Poulsbo No electronic readerboards allowed Everett 2 seconds Tacoma 12 seconds Seattle/Bellevue Not identified • BMC 20.52.070 Sign Placement Requirements o Proposing revision to subsection (a)(2)for Temporary Banner Signs, to be content neutral but still allow the City to erect banner signs, within the public right-of-way(such as over Pacific Avenue). •Page 3 • BMC 20.52.085 Political Signs o Revise this portion of the code from "Political Signs" to "Noncommercial Speech Signs"to be more generalized and content neutral. Additional revision also includes removal of the language "signs must be removed 14-days after the general election". All Noncommercial Speech Signs (from "Vote to John Doe" to "Pesticide Free-Zone" to "Support our Troops") need to be treated the same, to be consistent within the SCOTUS decision and therefore the time restriction for only political signs is recommended to be removed. It should be noted that this section of the BMC does not regulate placement of signs in the public right- of-way. The Noncommercial Speech Signs are very similar to the allowed Temporary Sign provisions. The reader may ask why two categories of sign types if the codes are so similar. The "Temporary Sign" code per BMC 20.52.080 is targeted towards Commercial development, but any business or property owner that can comply with these provisions could have a temporary sign after applying for a permit. The Temporary Sign code permits small (32 square feet freestanding signs) and larger signs (100 square feet banners)with shorter duration of display time and must be removed after 60-days. The City requires a permit for the Temporary signage so Staff can review the larger signs for structural support including anchoring/attachment of the sign, where it is located on the properly(to ensure vehicular/pedestrian safety), and can easily manage the duration that a temporary sign is allowed to be up. The Noncommercial Speech signs allows only the smaller freestanding sign (less than 32 square feet)that may stay up for an unlimited duration. As the Noncommercial Speech signs are limited to the smaller sign option (thus less impacts to the visual distractions), they do not have to go through a permitting process, thus promoting free (noncommercial) speech of our citizens and business owners without an onerous permitting process. The proposed amendment ensures consistency throughout the regulations and the City's code is not based on the content of the sign. • BMC 20.52.090 General Sign Regulations o Added new provisions regarding illumination. As more signs are being converted to LED message boards, Planning Commission has proposed a provision in the code to limit the brightness of the signs that could impact the passing motorist or neighboring home or business. Please note that this section has been further amended by Staff since Planning Commission recommendation follows: • Planning Commission's recommendation identified "undue brightness"was more generalized: BMC 20.52.090(f): "...During hours of darkness, the illumination shall be adjusted to ensure there is no undue brightness. "Undue brightness" is illumination in excess of that which is necessary to make the sign reasonably visible to the average person." • Staffs recommendation: As Staff considered this proposed code changes, Code Enforcement implementation became a concern. As such, Staff is proposing to revise this section to have a measureable provision, "Undue brightness" is illumination in excess of 0.3 footcandles above ambient light conditions." o As the Commission was concerned about the impact of the removal of the time-duration a political/noncommercial speech sign can be displayed, provisions about Sign Maintenance has been recommended. During the public hearing, the Commission passed an amending motion for Staff to include language within this section about failing light component within signs (such as "L-O-W-E-S" sign become "O-W-E-S"). Staff recommendation (which is proposed in the Ordinance) is to add "a nonfunctional component"to the following: BMC 20.52.090(g)(2)Sign components and materials shall be kept in good repair which shall •Page 4 include the sign being free of holes, chipping, cracking, peeling, fading, rusting or a nonfunctional component that is detectable from beyond the property line. • BMC 20.52.100 Commercial Districts Sign Regulations o Rename "Shopping Center or Professional Complex"to "Large Multiple Occupant Development" o Revise Co-op Signs to help provide further clarification. A Co-op sign is intended to allow businesses that do not have street frontages on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise by sharing a sign with a business that has street frontage (such as the Swing Set Mall would be able to coordinate with the Wheaton Way business owner to share signage). As the way the Code is currently written, Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way get a larger sign than their underlying Zoning District regardless if they utilize the Co-op sign or not. As the City is trying to incentivize sharing of signage (and the reducing the cluttering of signage), the proposed code revisions still allows for Co-op signs, but only allows an increase in maximum sign size if the Co-op sign is utilized by both businesses. In addition, after considering public comment received in June 2016, the Commission is proposes extending the eligible parcels that can participate in Co-op signage beyond the "must share a property line,"to parcels that may be farther off of Wheaton or Kitsap Way. • BMC 20.52.110 Auto Dealerships Sign Regulations o As the Supreme Court decision identifies that the sign code should be content neutral, this section is proposed for removal as it is use-specific. As the use of auto dealerships are only allowed within the Freeway Corridor, Staff is proposing to remove this section, but off-set the potential impacts to the businesses within the Freeway Corridor and allow the maximum size of the sign to be revised from 100 square feet maximum to 150 square feet maximum for all uses within this zone, not just auto dealers. • BMC 20.52.120 Residential District Sign Regulations o Revised this section to remove "Multiple-Family Developments" signs and revise this portion of the code to be more content neutral. This revision treats all residential development(subdivision or apartment complex) equally. • BMC 20.52.180 Nonconforming Signs o Revised subsection (b)to add the provision that regulates maintenance and repair to off- premise signs. The provision was copied from BMC 20.52.180(c)(2). This will add consistency between "on-site" and "off-site" maintenance and repair of nonconforming signs. • Figure 20.52(a) o Revised Freeway Corridor to 150 square feet maximum size (please see the previous section regarding BMC 20.52.110 Auto Dealership Signs for clarification) o Revised the "Downtown and Centers Zones" to consolidate all Center designations as they have the same provisions and added the "Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton" to the table. The PSIC-B maximum sign size matches the PSIC-B Subarea Plan regulations on signage. o In a previous Planning Commission Workshop, footnote#3 allowed signs along Kitsap and Wheaton Way to have larger signs as the Commission recognized that this provision would make our code consistent with Kitsap County's allowed signage in Silverdale. However it came to the attention of Staff that as currently written, this would allow larger •Page 5 signage along Lower Wheaton Way (including part of Manette). Staff is proposing (within the Ordinance)the following revision from the Planning Commission recommendation regarding Wheaton Way: "(from Riddell Road to Sheridan Road)..." SUMMARY: The Planning Commission finds that these amendments are in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions, they improve the functionality of the zoning code and will better address the changing technology of signage, and have recommend that the City Council adopt these changes. •Page 6 Attachment Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for: Workshops held on June 21, 2016 and July 19, 2016 Public Hearing held on September 20, 2016 Attachment I R( )V I I) CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING June 21, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Wofford Andrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Commissioner Goodnow Allison Satter,Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Nerf Kylie Purves,Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Vice Chair Nethery(excused) Commissioner Strube(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2016 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public(public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none,he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Workshop: Bremerton Municipal Code Sign Regulations(BMC 20.52) Director Spencer introduced Kylie Purves,who joined the City staff earlier this year as the Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Purves provided an overview of a recent Supreme Court Case(Reed vs. Town of Gilbert), which came out in June of 2015, and involves signs. The purpose of her presentation is to explain the decision's implications on jurisdictions Attachment I throughout the United States,and particularly the City of Bremerton. The case claimed that the City of Gilbert,Arizona,had enacted sign regulations that impacted the First Amendment rights of a citizen's group that was active in the municipality. The plaintiff in the case, Clyde Reed, the pastor of Good News Community Church, placed temporary signs in the public right-of-way to direct people to Sunday services. The church did not have a permanent home, and they met in various locations throughout the City, depending on where they were able to use space. The Town of Gilbert's sign code attempted to regulate signs in a way that was content neutral. For example,it allowed non-political,non-ideological,non-commercial "qualifying event"signs,and the church service was considered a qualifying event. However,the signs could not exceed six square feet and they could only be up 12 hours before and one hour after the event. On the other hand,political signs were allowed a maximum of 32 square feet and could be up 60 days before and 15 days after any election. Also,ideological signs were allowed a maximum of 20 square feet and could be displayed for an unlimited amount of time, but they could not be located in the right-of-way. This provision was intended to be a catch all for the First Amendment. Ms. Purves advised that the intent of Gilbert's sign code is similar to sign codes in other communities throughout the country: ensuring there are not too many signs to distract drivers and to maintain the aesthetics of the community. The Town of Gilbert did not intend to give anyone special treatment. They thought their sign code was good and they were trying to enforce it uniformly across the board. They thought that because the sign regulations did not distinguish between different opinions or parties, the regulations were content neutral. However, if the intent is to keep signs out of the right-of-way because they are distracting and cause clutter,the Supreme Court questioned why the city allowed larger signs to remain in place longer than smaller signs. They determined that the regulations implied that it is more important to talk about politics than where to meet for church,which meets the defmition of a content-based regulation. Ms.Purves explained that content-based restrictions have to survive strict scrutiny in order to be upheld,and this standard is rarely met. The Town of Gilbert was unable to meet the standard,as their sign code required the code enforcement officer to read the sign content in order to know where to put it in the framework of the code. The majority opinion was that because it singled out for differential treatment, even if it didn't target viewpoints, it was a content-based regulation that did not pass constitutional analysis. The court's decision explained that if the reason for the code is beautification of the town and concern over confusing drivers by having too many signs, the regulations must line up with what that intent. Because political signs would be just as distracting as directional signs,the regulations did not add up. They basically placed arbitrary restrictions on different signs based on what they perceived as a value judgement on what people needed to hear. She emphasized that the town's motives were considered innocent,and they didn't find any evidence of the town engaging in any sort of discrimination or bad faith. It was simply found unconstitutional because it was a content-based restriction. Ms. Purves advised that the majority opinion, issued by Justice Thomas,was accompanied by three concurring opinions in which the other justices agreed with the result of the majority opinion but for different reasons. Justice Alito provided guidance in his concurring opinion. He suggested that rather than message, signs should be regulated based on size and location standards,lighting, fixed vs.changing,commercial vs.residential,on-premise vs.off-premise,etc. He summarized that if cities make sure their restrictions are tailored narrowly with their reasons for regulating in the first place,they should be okay. Ms. Satter reminded the Commission of the Comprehensive Plan, which sets the goals, policies and objectives going forward. She specifically noted the following: Economic Development Element • Goal ED2 calls for"revitalizing Bremerton's commercial districts by upgrading and enhancing the aesthetic quality of existing building and street frontages. • Policy ED2(A)calls for encouraging upgrades and rehabilitation of exiting commercial development through a wide variety of means,including the recognition and preservation of historical storefronts and signage. • Policy ED2(B) calls for ensuring new commercial development promotes street level activation to encourage walkability and social interaction through site and facade design. Land Use Element • Goal LU1 calls for planning for Bremerton's population and employment growth. • Policy LU2(E) calls for promoting exposure of City businesses and community events by signage that is proportional to the intensity of the land use designations while recognizing the existing character of the \ i )I 40 cel Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 2 of 10 Attachment I neighborhood. It also calls for discouraging off-premise signage throughout the City, including billboards, with exceptions for special events to be considered. Ms. Satter summarized that the current sign code (BMC 20.52) is concise and relatively straight forward. Most requested signs are approved through the current code; and for the most part it is already separated by zoning districts and is not content-based. The City has the ability to regulate the size and number of signs,as well as the materials allowed. However, if the code requires the City to read what a sign says to administer the provisions, it will not pass the "strict scrutiny" requirement. The City cannot regulate based on content. Staff recognizes that some provisions in the existing regulations will not pass the strict scrutiny test and improvements are needed. These will be noted,but staff is not promoting suggestions for updates at this time. The Supreme Court decision also makes portions of the code difficult to enforce and administer and changes are needed to bring it into compliance. She pointed out that many of the updates will make the code more generalized, which creates more potential for loopholes. A lot of work will be needed on certain sections to get all the provisions to the same place. Ms. Satter said the purpose of tonight's workshop is for staff to present the current sign code regulations (BMC 20.52), identify areas that will be impacted by the Supreme Court decision,and propose some additional amendments. Staff will also discuss the reasoning behind the current regulations. As the discussion moves forward, she invited the Commissioners to provide feedback on anything that needs to be added to the record on history or objectives or other revisions that may be needed. Staff will pose questions throughout the presentation for the Commission to respond to, and the questions will be revisited at the end of the discussion. Public testimony will also be considered as part of the discussion. The goal is for the Planning Commission to provide direction on how to draft the sign code regulations. Any feedback will be incorporated into the next workshop. Ms. Satter advised that staff already knows that the following sections will need to be updated due to the Supreme Court decision: exempt signage,temporary signage,political signage,auto-dealership signage,and special purpose signage. There will likely be minor amendments for the majority of other sections, as well. Staff would specifically like feedback from the Planning Commission relative to the non-conforming sign regulations that were adopted in 2014 before the Comprehensive Plan was updated. She reviewed each section of the sign code as follows: • BMC 20.52.010—Intent. The intent of the sign code is to protect the public from damage or injury attributable to distractions and obstructions and to stabilize or enhance the overall appearance of the community and protect property values. Staff is primarily happy with this section, as written. The sign code is intended to regulate the number, size, placement and physical characteristics of signs and sign structures, but they are not intended to restrict, limit or control the content of any sign message. • BMC 20.52.020—Applicability. This section identifies what areas in the City have applicable sign regulations. The sign code applies everywhere in the City. • BMC 20.52.030—Sign Permit. This section outlines when a permit is required and what makes a complete application. • BMC 20.52.040—Exempt Signage. This portion of the code regulates exempt signs that do not require a permit. Signs that are non-commercial, incidental or temporary in nature (i.e. traffic signals, traffic signs, flags, incidental signs, directional signs,etc.)do not require a permit,but the sign code provisions still apply. Several items in this section need to be reviewed for consistency with the Supreme Court's decision including permanent plaques, incidental signs, real estate signs, temporary signs, public information signs, wall graphics and political signs. For example, before the Supreme Court decision, the City could allow an exemption for"for sale"or"for rent" signs. Rather than limiting the exemption to what the sign says,the code will need to be changed to allow an exemption for an extra sign on a property that is currently for sale or rent. • BMC 20.52.040—Prohibited Signs. This portion of the code prohibits certain signage due to safety concerns. It also limits the placement and location of the sign. Other items in this section will need to be reviewed based on the current Supreme Court decision. For example,the City code prohibits lights or other flashing,moving or animated features. In addition,reader board signs cannot change copy more frequently than 2-second intervals, but there is an exemption for time and temperature that will need to be removed. Product signs,other than those at a franchise business identifying the i ))))\()I Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 3 of 10 Attachment franchise product, are currently prohibited, and this may be a problem based on the Supreme Court decision. Staff is particularly seeking feedback on whether or not the 2-second interval for flashing signs is appropriate. Many jurisdictions have increased the intervals to something greater than 2. Because reader boards are allowed in every zoning district in the City,this is an opportunity to have them flash less frequently. • BMC 20.52.060—Sign Measurements. This portion of the code regulates how sign area is calculated as many sign regulations are based off of square footage of a sign. This section of the code is not content based,so there will likely be only minor revisions. • BMC 20.52.070 — Sign Placement Requirements. This portion of the code regulates the placement of signs on properties. It addresses the clear vision triangle and signs allowed in the right-of-way. This section of the code is not content based,so there will likely be only minor revisions. • BMC 20.52.080—Temporary Signs. Any property in the City can get a temporary sign that is subject to the placement, size and height requirements of the chapter. Temporary signs can be used when a permanent sign is destroyed or a starter business may put up a temporary banner until permanent signage is complete,and 60 days should be sufficient time to obtain a permanent sign. Based on the Supreme Court decision,the City will have to revisit the provisions in the section. Currently,temporary signs can be up for 60 days and then must be removed for 90 days. Businesses can put up another temporary sign for another 60 days. Currently,temporary signs can be up to 32 square feet in size,and banners can be 100 square feet. The maximum height from the ground is 6 feet for a sign and 20 feet for a banner. A permit is required for the signs.Temporary signs that are displayed for less than 7 days,are less than 24 square feet in size,and are less than 6 feet high are exempt from the permit requirement. • BMC 20.52.085—Political Signs. This portion of the code regulates political signs that are defined as noncommercial speech signs(religious,political,social,or other philosophical message). The content of these signs is not regulated,but they are subject to additional requirements. No permit would be required as long as the sign does not exceed 32 square feet or 6 feet in height(same as for temporary signs). Political signs that advertise a candidate or issue of an upcoming election must be removed within 14 days after a general election. This is not consistent with the temporary sign requirements,so changes will need to be made to be compliant with the Supreme Court decision. • BMC 20.52.090—General Sign Regulations. This portion of the code provides general overall sign regulations that apply to all zoning districts. It requires vision clearance for all signs and allows signs to expand beyond the rooftop in commercial and center zones. Window signs are allowed if they can be seen from outside, but they count towards the total area of signage allowed. Landscaping is required for freestanding(pole or monument)signs. • BMC 20.52.100—Commercial District Signs. This portion of the code regulates all signs located within a commercial zone(not including centers). Currently,every parcel is allowed one freestanding sign,and large parcels(over 500 feet of continuous frontage) are allowed an additional sign. Co-Op signs are allowed as discussed by the Commission in September and October of 2014. This allows non-fronting parcels on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way to work with their fronting neighbors to place co-op signs on the fronting road. Building signs are allowed, but the size is limited to 2 square feet of sign area for every 1 lineal foot of frontage. Building signs cannot exceed 100 square feet unless the sign is less than 10%of the façade. Industrial uses in commercial zones are allowed a maximum 100 square feet of aggregate sign area. Something to review under the Supreme Court decision is whether regulating signs at shopping centers and professional complexes is too specific. • Figure 20.52(A). Many provisions in the sign code lead to Figure 20.52(A), which identifies the allowed type of freestanding signage and design size requirements. Freestanding signs can be either pole or monument signs. The size of the sign is based on the intensity of the zoning district. The majority of the commercial districts allow monument signs up to 60 square feet,but the Freeway Corridor and Industrial Zones allow monument signs up to 100 square feet. High-density urban areas tend to have more foot traffic,so there is typically more demand for small-scale and sidewalk signs. High-traffic streets and highways require larger and taller signage for good visibility,which leads to a demand for larger signs that are visible to drivers rather than pedestrians. Pole signs are only allowed within the Freeway Corridor. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 4of10 Attachment I • BMC 20.52.110—Auto Dealership Signs. This section applies within the Freeway Corridor zone, which allows the majority of commercial uses, including light industrial (outright) and heavy industrial (conditionally) uses. Auto dealerships are allowed additional signage based on how many franchises are located on site. Currently,50 square feet is allowed per franchise,not to exceed 150 square feet for a pole sign or 200 square feet for a monument sign. Based on the Supreme Court decision, staff does not believe it is appropriate to allow auto dealerships more signage than other businesses in the Freeway Corridor zone. She asked the Commission to provide feedback about whether or not the entire Freeway Corridor should be allowed to have the larger size. • BMC 20.52.120—Residential District Signs. This section regulates signs located within residential zones. Currently, the code allows up to 50 square feet of signage at entrances to neighborhoods, apartments and subdivisions. Multi- family development(four or more units)is only allowed to have four square feet of signage. Individual property owners can have 2 square feet of signage.This allows for signage for home occupations,but keeps the residential neighborhood aesthetics intact. The provision does not regulate non-commercial speech signs. Based on the Supreme Court decision, staff has some concerns about regulating entrance signs differently than multi-family signs. • BMC 20.52.120—Special Purpose Signs. This section regulates signs for non-residential uses that are located within residential zones(i.e.churches,parks,or non-conforming commercial uses). Currently,the code allows one freestanding sign per street frontage,and the maximum size is 50 square feet. The maximum area allowed for building signs is 100 square feet. Commercial uses may be more restrictive on sign size as it is based off lineal store frontage but is only allowed one sign per street frontage. Signs within residential zones can only be illuminated between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.so they do not conflict with their residential neighbors. • BMC 20.52.140—Downtown and Centers Signs. This section of the code regulates signs located within a Center (Downtown Center, Wheaton/Riddel and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers, Charleston and Manette Neighborhood Centers). Freestanding signs of up to 60 square feet are allowed,but a wide lot may have a sign that is up to 100 square feet. However,the code does not currently define"wide parcel." This section also includes a provision that signs shall be no closer than 25 feet from adjacent properties, which may be difficult in the downtown where some parcels are small. The code allows the Director to modify the requirement where factors such as width of lot, driveway access or site configuration makes compliance impossible. Building signs must comply with the Commercial District regulations, and moving, flashing or animated signs are prohibited. As centers promote both housing and jobs, the moving signs would distract drivers and could impact the neighboring residents. • BMC 20.52.150—Variations to Sign Regulations. This portion of the code authorizes the Director to allow minor departures from the code. Currently,the code allows the Director to approve a larger sign that is within 10%of the basic requirement based on a hardship or problem with the site,existing building placement,or poor site visibility. However, the variance cannot be based on economic factors or personal design preferences. A request beyond 10% must be processed as a variance. • BMC 20.52.150 — Portable Signs. Portable signs on the sidewalk are allowed, but the City does have a policy to minimize off-premise signage. Currently, a portable sign must have 4 feet of unobstructed sidewalk in front of the property. One per business is allowed,but it must be immediately adjacent to the main entrance. The maximum size is 32 inches wide and maximum height is 36 inches. The signs must be professionally lettered, neatly painted or assembled, and remain in good repair. The signs should be structurally sound to avoid being blown away or over. Landscaping areas should not be affected by the portable signs. Per Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)regulations,portable signs are not allowed on SR-3,SR 303,SR 304 and SR 310. • BMC 20.52.180—Non-Conforming Signs. This portion of the code regulates signs that do not comply with the City's current regulations. The non-conforming sign provisions were revised in February of 2014 to remove amortization of non-conforming signage. To accommodate the removal of signs,more detailed non-conforming provisions were adopted to try to reduce the non-conforming signage over time (as a building goes through substantial repair vs. a citywide compliance through amortization). In October of 2014,the 1-year provision for non-conforming signs was removed due to the acknowledgement of the impacts from the recession. Rather than requiring businesses that had been closed for more than one year to remove the non-compliant sign,the provision was changed to require businesses to bring signs ,In��I Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 5of10 Attachment I into compliance if they are proposing to do more than $50,000 in improvements. Several examples were provided to illustrate the outcome of the non-conforming sign regulations. • BMC 20.52.190—Government Acquisition of Property for Right-of-Way. This portion of the code regulates the protocol when the government acquires land and existing signs become non-conforming. The current code allows a sign to be placed near the property line provided the location does not impact sight distance from the intersections and is consistent with the public health,safety and welfare. • BMC 20.52.200—Removal of Signs. This portion of the code applies to signs that are dangerous, illegal,prohibited, defective or abandoned. As written,it requires that all components of the signs must be removed,and failure to comply may result in a penalty. Ms. Satter advised that,moving forward,the staff will be being preparing the draft sign regulations after receiving direction from the Commission. Staff is proposing to keep the majority of the current sign code objectives intact, but make the provisions more content neutral. This includes: • Allowing all businesses to have signage. • The maximum size of a sign would be based on the intensity of the zone and the anticipated target audience. • No off-premise signage would be allowed,except for co-op signs or portable signs. • Freestanding monument signs would be allowed in all commercial zones, but pole signs would only be allowed in Industrial and Freeway Corridor zones. • The non-conforming sign requirements have resulted in getting more signage into conformance with the City's regulations. Chair Wofford opened the floor for public comment. No one indicated a desire to comment,and the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Tift asked how real estate signs are currently regulated and if there are size limitations. Ms.Satter answered that real estate signs are regulated as on-premise signs,which are exempt based on the provision that allows an extra sign on a property that is currently for sale or rent. There are no size limitations at this time,but off-premise real estate signs that are located in the right-of-way are regulated. The City has not received any complaints about real estate signs. Commissioner Tift asked if single-family residential property owners are allowed to place large signs on their homes, such as welcome signs. Ms. Satter said signage that is incorporated into the building and is less than 2 square feet in size is exempt from the sign code provisions. While this is definitely something that needs to be considered as part of the Commission's review,the provisions cannot be content based. Commissioner Tift inquired if there are size limits for political signs in addition to time limitations. Ms. Satter said the current code limits political signs to a maximum of 32 square feet or 6 feet in height, which is the same as for temporary signs. Larger political signs are allowed but require a permit. Commissioner Goodnow asked if there are time limits for when a property owner must bring a sign into compliance when more than$50,000 of improvements are made to the property. Ms.Satter said sign compliance is usually tied to the building permit. Typically,it will be a condition of approval and the sign must be compliant before occupancy. Chair Wofford asked how the City's parks signs are regulated. Ms.Satter answered that a permit is required,and the signs must be compliant. Park signs are considered"special purpose signs,"which are allowed to be a maximum of 50 square feet and are limited to one per frontage. Director Spencer pointed out that all of the City's parks are zoned residential,and most are located in the R-10 Zone. The City must be careful when writing sign code regulations because the R-IO zone will likely have one size listed and it will be applicable to areas such as parks to home-based businesses. Most of the City's current code is based on zoning district and not on the specific user of the site. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 6 of 10 Attachment I Chair Wofford asked how the municipal court sign would be regulated. Ms. Satter answered that this sign was approved before the non-conforming sign provisions were adopted. Therefore,they were not required to remove the existing pole sign as part of the remodel work. Chair Wofford referred to a comment the Commission received via email relative to enforcement. Currently,aside from the initial application,there is no follow-up or penalty for non-compliance. He recalled Ms. Satter's earlier comment that state routes are governed by WSDOT and asked if the moving sign on Kitsap Way is under State rather than City regulation. Ms. Satter clarified that signs located within the City's jurisdiction are regulated by the City. They try not to have codes in place that conflict with the State regulations,but the City does not enforce State rules. Director Spencer recalled that when the City's codes are changed, the amendments must be put out for public agency comment. WSDOT asked the City to add regulations relative to portable signs into its codes, and the City is responsible for enforcement. Enforcement is complaint- based, and staff responds when complaints are received. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the portable air-filled sign on Kitsap Way (waving man) is covered in the current sign code regulations. Director Spencer answered affirmatively; but said that, oftentimes,the property owners do not approach the City for a sign permit. Commissioner Goodnow suggested that these types of signs could be regulated as temporary signs,which have specific time limitations. Commissioner Goodnow asked how human signs at intersections are currently regulated. Ms. Satter answered that human spinning signs are regulated by the current code. However, they are not allowed if they are located off-premise and within the right-of-way. Commissioner Tift referred to the comment letter from Ms. Bailey, which talks about the Swing Set Mall. Ms. Satter explained that the co-op provision allows signage for fronting parcels,and one parcel back. The Swing Set Mall is actually multiple parcels back, and they don't have the location that allows them a co-op sign on Wheaton Way. They may have requested an additional sign up front,but off-premise signs are not allowed. Expanding the co-op sign provisions could be something the Commission considers as it moves forward with the sign code review. Chair Wofford suggested that businesses with an address on the street should be allowed to have a sign on that same street. Ms. Satter agreed that is one way the code could be written. The Commissioners reviewed the questions posed earlier by staff and provided the following direction: • With reader board signs allowed in every zoning district, is the current 2-second interval appropriate? Commissioner Nerf expressed his belief that 2-second intervals are too fast, and 5-second intervals might be more appropriate. Commissioner Goodnow said he would also prefer longer intervals. Ms. Satter agreed to provide a proposal,as well as examples of how other jurisdictions regulate reader board signs,when the Commission continues its discussion at the next meeting. • Should the City have timelines on non-commercial temporary signage? Ms. Satter said these signs include political signs,philosophical signs,religious signs,etc. Chair Wofford said he would like the City to limit all non-commercial temporary signage to just seven days after the event has occurred. Ms. Satter cautioned that the City cannot regulate based on event. Director Spencer suggested that the signs be allowed to go up for a total of 60 days,and the sign owner could decide when those 60 days will be. Ms. Purves said this particular type of signage is the most problematic to regulate in a content-neutral yet sensible manner. Staff is reviewing what other jurisdictions are doing, but no other jurisdiction in Kitsap County is as far along as the City of Bremerton in updating sign codes. However,the Association of Washington Cities has provided a model code. Assuming that most temporary non-commercial signs are for an event, Chair Wofford suggested that the time limitation could include a time after the event that the sign must be removed. Ms.Purves responded that this type of limitation could be a problem because the City would have to look at the sign to know when the event is over. She commented that because temporary signs tend to be more cheaply made and located in the rights-of-way,some jurisdictions are looking at regulating the types of material and where the signs are placed. Staff will continue to look at case law and provide more information as it becomes available. Commissioner Tift pointed out that temporary construction signs are used when buildings are being developed, and these will be followed by temporary "for rent" signs. Ms. Satter advised that, currently, temporary signs for construction,real estate marketing and real estate are exempt from the sign code. She acknowledged that some changes will be needed. Ms. Purves said one solution put forward by lawyers is to categorize the sign limitations based on the Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 7 of 10 Attachment I use of the property. For example,instead of allowing one sign for each house that is for sale,the code could say houses that are for sale are allowed one additional sign. Commissioner Nerf asked if it would be possible to issue a tag for each sign that is permitted that identifies the date by which the sign must be removed. Ms.Satter said that is one option that some jurisdictions are considering. However,it would require more staff time to permit and monitor the signs. Commissioner Tift cautioned that the tighter the regulations, the more work is created for staff. Political signs that are up two months after the election is more a reflection on the candidate than it is a nuisance. He recommended that signs not be limited such that they become an enforcement problem for the City. • Should auto dealerships get more than 100 square feet of signage,which would allow all Freeway Corridor zoning to get more signage? Ms. Satter explained that dealerships were very influential when the sign code was significantly updated about 12 years ago,and that is why there are specific provisions for car dealerships in the current code. Making changes to reduce the signage they are currently allowed could have significant political ramifications. She commented that the current code language is unusual, since sign code provisions are typically based on zoning rather than use. The Commission discussed existing businesses that currently have more than 100 square feet of signage. Commissioner Goodnow suggested that this is an opportunity to use the Supreme Court decision to reel in sign allowances within the Freeway Corridor zone. Another option would be to address it by allowing additional signage based on the number of franchises operating on the site. Ms. Satter pointed out that,based on the Supreme Court decision,changes are needed to this section of the code. That means they must either reduce the sign area allowed for auto dealerships to be consistent with what is allowed for other businesses in the Freeway Corridor zone or increase the sign area for all businesses to be consistent with what is allowed for auto dealerships. Commissioner Tift said he would prefer to increase the sign area allowed for all businesses within the zone than try to reel back in the auto dealerships. Commissioner Goodnow suggested that perhaps the franchise signs used by auto dealerships could be regulated similar to co-op signs. Director Spencer said she likes the notion of using the co-op sign code regulations as the model. Co-op signs combine the development rights of several parcels into one place. Administering this approach would not require staff to read the sign to make sure it meets the code. However, she is somewhat concerned the City has to read the separate signs to determine that they are separate franchises. Ms. Purves pointed out that jurisdictions did not immediately start amending their signs codes because they wanted to see how the lower courts would interpret the decision. Staff will continue to watch as case law is developed further, particularly relative to the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech. If the 90 Circuit and other courts start leaning the direction of reading the decision to be limited to only non-commercial speech,jurisdictions can continue to regulate commercial speech in the way they did before. Jurisdictions are taking a slow,measured approach as they collect input from stakeholders and review their codes. Political signs are very analogous to the court decisions and everyone knows they need to comply,but whether it will extend to commercial speech is another issue. • Should residential signs at neighborhood entrances be regulated different than entrances to apartment complexes? Commercial Goodnow asked staff to explain the disparity between the two uses. Director Spencer said she does not know why the disparity was created in the code, but staff believes the requirement for both should be the same. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the provision would apply to large apartment complexes,as well. Ms. Satter answered that it would only apply to signs in residential zones,and the large,multi-family projects will be developed in the downtown or center zones where a 60 square foot sign area is allowed. Commissioner Nerf commented that it is unlikely that the owner of a 4-unit residential building would want to put up a large sign. The Commissioners generally concurred that the allowable sign area should be consistent for both neighborhood and apartment entrances in residential areas. Director Spencer explained that the intent is to take a slow approach to the sign code update. The workshop is intended to introduce the Commissioners to the concept, and staff's intent is to come back with preliminary code changes in July for another workshop discussion. Notices were sent to the City's development partners,realtors, Master Builders Association, etc., and realtors have volunteered to serve on a committee as the amendments move forward. A public hearing on the sign )1 1) c(I Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016- Page 8of10 Attachment I code amendments is anticipated in September. This will allow staff time to collect more case law and provide additional examples for the Commission's consideration. Ms. Purves noted that Harvard Law just did a review of all of the cases that have happened since the Supreme Court decision, and their position is that it is being applied to both commercial and non- commercial signs. Director Spencer announced that the City would create a website specific to the sign code update,which will be available to both the Commission and the public. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford did not provide any additional comments. Director Report Director Spencer announced that since the Commission's last meeting in April, the City Council has adopted the Comprehensive Plan Update,the Zoning Code Update, minor amendments to the Shoreline Master Program,and expansion of the Multi-Family Tax Incentive target areas. A lot of kudos were shared about the Planning Commission during the City Council's work. She specifically referred to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Update and noted that there were only minor changes to the Planning Commission's recommended draft: • The Commission's motion relative to allowing automobile sales in the District Center failed, and the City Council did not accept the change, either. When having their debate, the Commission zoomed in tight on the map of the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center, and the City Council had the same debate and agreed that it may not make sense to allow automobile sales in the District Centers given that it was allowed in General Commercial. However, when they zoomed out on the map, they realized that automobile sales would be allowed in many more areas of the City if the recommendation to allow automobile sales in the General Commercial Zone was adopted. They decided to prohibit automobile sales in the General Commercial zone, as well, and this eliminated the conflict on the Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way Corridors where some parcels would be allowed to have automobile sales and other would not. • Originally Staff had recommended a requirement of 1 parking space for each multi-family unit in the District Centers, and the Commission received testimony requesting that the parking requirement be reduced to .5 spaces per unit to be consistent with the Downtown Plan. The Council reviewed the Downtown Subarea Plan in detail and found out that only a portion of the downtown had this low standard. The City Council reversed the Commission's recommendation to reduce the parking requirement to .5 spaces per unit in all centers and went back to staffs original proposal of 1 space per unit. Testimony at the City Council hearing was primarily in favor of the 1-per-unit requirement. Director Spencer advised that the next step is to get plan certification from the Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC)so the City is eligible to receive funding going into the future, and Ms. Satter has completed the certification application. The Department of Ecology must also approve the Shoreline Plan Limited Amendments, which may take three to six months to complete. Old Business Chair Wofford asked if there are applicants to fill the vacant Commission position. Director Spencer answered that there are at least three applicants,and staff will schedule interviews in the near future. New Business The Commissioners commended staff for the quality of their work and the products the Commission has received for each item. iru“.(1 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016—Page 9 of 10 Attachment I ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: • rhea 41t'cer, Nick Wofford,Chair Executive :ecre •, Planning Commission k iruv r(l Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2016--Page 10 of 10 Attachment I CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Wofford Andrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Vice Chair Nethery Allison Satter,Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Goodnow Kylie Purves,Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Nerf Commissioner Strube Commissioner Tift Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2016 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public(public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none,he closed the public portion of the meeting. Workshop: Bremerton Municipal Code(BMC)Sign Regulations(BMC 20.52) Ms. Satter explained that the City regulates signs based on the types of zoning, which recognizes the neighborhood and street context. The Freeway Corridor and Industrial Zones are located along the high-traffic roadways and larger, freestanding signs are allowed to capture the attention of the faster traffic that goes by. The District Centers, General Commercial and Institutional Zones are areas with moderate traffic that is slower, and the signage allowed is intended to capture the attention of both automobiles and pedestrians. The Neighborhood Commercial Zones have slower traffic and the signs can be smaller in scale to target pedestrians. Residential zones have the most restrictive sign standards. Attachment I Ms.Satter emphasized that State law requires that the sign code regulations must be content neutral and not based on what a sign says. Because the City's current sign code is based on zoning,rather than content,not a lot of changes are needed to address the legal requirements. However, there are opportunities to improve the code based on recent case law. She reviewed the following proposed changes: • BMC 20.42—Definitions. Mobile or portable signage is becoming more prevalent in the City and a new definition would be added for"portable signs." • BMC 20.52.040—Exempt Signs. While real estate and temporary on-site construction signs would still be allowed as an exempt activity not requiring a permit,the language in this section would be revised to be more generalized and content neutral. "Political signs"would be renamed"noncommercial speech signs." • BMC 20.52.050—Prohibited Signs. The current code prohibits moving,flashing and animated signs,but it allows for readerboard signs. Currently,readerboard signs can change copy every 2 seconds. At a previous discussion,the Commission requested that staff provide examples of how other cities address readerboard signs. Based on this information, staff is proposing that the time be changed to every 8 seconds. Ms Satter emphasized that all zones allow for readerboard signs,but they cannot be animated. • BMC 20.52.070—Sign Placement Requirements. The current code has an exemption for signs erected by the City for a public event. To make the code more content neutral, staff is proposing more general language to read, "temporary banner signs erected by the City are exempt from a permit." • BMC 20.52.085 —Political Signs. This section also needs to be revised to be more content neutral. "Political signs"would be renamed"noncommercial speech signs." In addition,the language that requires removal of signs after an event would be eliminated. She clarified that commercial signs would have to follow the provisions for temporary signs or commercial signs. Noncommercial signs would be a separate category with specific size limitations. Commissioner Goodnow asked if there would still be a limit on the length of time a noncommercial speech sign could stay up. Ms. Satter said staff is not proposing a time limitation. She explained that case law makes it clear that limiting the length of time can be problematic if it is based on the type of noncommercial sign. However,the time could be limited similar to how temporary signs are regulated(60 days up, 90 days down). Commissioner Goodnow voiced concern that temporary signs could use the noncommercial speech sign code provision to avoid the time limitation. Ms. Satter responded that commercial speech signs would not qualify. Commissioner Goodnow noted that the only way to determine if a sign is commercial or noncommercial is to read it,which means that the code would still be content based. Ms. Satter recognized this could be a problem and it would likely be determined based on the use of the site. Commissioner Goodnow suggested that the provisions related to noncommercial speech signs could be moved to the section on temporary signs. • BMC 20.52.090—General Signs. A provision was added to this section to address illumination. Currently, the code is silent,other than language in a different section of the code that prohibits light from protruding beyond the property line,and the idea of signage is to get the message beyond the property line. The language talks about what is undue brightness and includes a provision for nighttime adjustments. • BMC 20.52.100—Commercial District Signs. Staff is proposing that"shopping center"signs be renamed"large multiple occupant development" signs. In addition,the"co-op" sign provisions were reworked. The intent of the co-op sign provisions is to allow properties along Wheaton and Kitsap Way that do not have street frontage an opportunity for signage,while still limiting the number of signs on the roadway. To incentivize the concept,staff is proposing that 15-foot-tall signs would still be allowed along Kitsap and Wheaton Way,but consolidated signage would be allowed additional square footage(up to 100 square feet). In addition, a provision was added to allow a property three parcels back from the street to consolidate on the fronting sign,and the sign could be up to 125 square feet. In exchange,the properties would transfer their development rights of their property to the parcel where the sign would be installed,but directional signs and wall signs on the buildings would still be allowed. The intent of i d Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes July 18,2016—Page 2 of 6 Attachment I the provision is to encourage the removal of multiple signage and reduce the visual clutter on Wheaton and Kitsap Way. It also provides opportunity for businesses to advertise on busy street frontages. Commissioner Nerf asked if the increase in square footage for sign consolidation would be per business. Ms. Satter explained that all properties on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way get an automatic sign height of 15 feet,which is consistent with Kitsap County. However,as currently written,the provision only applies to co-op signs. Staff believes it is appropriate to allow 15-foot signs on all properties along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, and the additional square footage would serve as an incentive for businesses to consolidate signage. For example, the fronting parcel would get 60 square feet of sign area, and adding a second sign for an adjacent property would increase the sign area to a total of 100 square feet(not 100 square feet per business). Adding signs for additional properties would increase the sign area up to a maximum of 125 square feet. While he can see the back businesses having an interest in getting advertising on the street, Commissioner Nerf asked what the incentive might be for street-front businesses to want to consolidate. Ms. Satter noted that a larger sign would be allowed. She explained that there would have to be a formal agreement recorded as a Notice to Title, and it would be up to the fronting property owner to decide how he/she wants to lease their space. Ms. Satter said staff reviewed the width of the typical parcel along Wheaton and Kitsap Ways to determine which parcels may be good candidates for participation in the co-op signage program. Based on this review, staff is recommending that a parcel width of 75 feet would be more appropriate than the current 100-feet. Many of the properties were slightly less than 100 feet wide. In addition, the co-op sign provision was expanded to include parcels within a certain distance rather than limiting the option to adjacent properties only. • BMC 20.52.110—Auto Dealership Signs. Since the use of auto dealerships is only allowed within the Freeway Corridor zone,Staff is proposing that this section be removed. However,the amendment would offset the potential impacts to businesses within the Freeway Corridor Zone by increasing the maximum size of the sign from 100 square feet to 150 square feet. This is consistent with the permitting of signage for auto dealerships as their businesses are typically three or less franchise, which would allow a maximum of 150 square feet. As proposed, Figure 20.52(a)would be revised to increase the maximum sign area for freestanding signs in the Freeway Corridor Zone to a maximum of 150 square feet. Staff reviewed all of the sign applications that have come to the City since 2005 for auto dealerships,and none have requested more than 3 signs and none have requested to utilize more than the maximum 150 square feet. • BMC 20.52.120—Residential District Signs. Staff is proposing to remove"multiple-family development" signs and revise this portion of the code to be more content neutral. The revision treats all residential development (subdivision or apartment complex)the same. As proposed,all residential development would be allowed up to 50 square feet for an identification sign, and individual properties would be allowed up to two square feet of signage. Every residential property would also be allowed to have a temporary sign of up to 32 square feet. Commissioner Nerf asked how the residential signs would be measured. Ms. Satter answered that the sign area calculation would not include the pillars on which the sign is attached. She referred to another section of the code, which addresses sign measurement. Currently,sign area is calculated by measuring around the words/message. The intent is to incentivize architectural appendages because they look nice. • SMC 20.52.180—Nonconforming Signs. The current nonconforming sign code provisions were last updated in 2014 and are working well. However,staff is recommending that the language be modified to make on-premise and off-premise signs consistent. As currently written, if a business does more than $50,000 of remodel work, on- premise signs must be brought into compliance with the code. As proposed, the same provision would also now apply to off-premise signs. In addition,a provision was added to address incidents that are beyond the owner and/or tenant's control. • BMC Figure 20.52(a) —Zone Specific Size and Design Requirements. The figure was revised to consolidate where appropriate. Staff also added a reference to the Puget Sound Industrial Center — Bremerton (PSIC-B) consistent with the Subarea Plan. Footnote 3 was revised to allow all commercial signs along Wheaton and Kitsap \ I )I \cel Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes July 18,2016 Page 3 of 6 Attachment I Way to increase their sign height to 15 feet. Previously the provision was only applicable to co-op signs. As revised,it would apply to all businesses that have direct access to Wheaton or Kitsap Way. Footnote 4 was added to state that co-op signage would be allowed an increase In sign area. Ms. Satter encouraged the Commissioners to consider public testimony and provide direction to staff to prepare for the upcoming public hearing on September 20th. She announced that, at the Commission's request, an on-going Zoning Code Amendment website (www.ci.bremerton.wa or www.bremerton.wa.gov) was created to allow the public access to the proposed amendments. No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. Vice Chair Nethery asked why staff is recommending removal of the time provision for noncommercial speech signs. Ms. Purves explained that one of the problems is that,currently,the length of time a sign can be up depends on the type of sign. For example,political signs must be removed 14 days after an election. The concern is that the restriction is content based. The Supreme Court has cautioned against codes that appear to place more value on one type of noncommercial message over another. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the City can establish a time limit on noncommercial speech signs that are placed in the rights-of-way. Director Spencer said the zoning code is not intended to regulate the public rights-of-way. There are separate right-way standards in the Public Works Provisions in the BMC. The sign code provisions in BMC 20.52 apply only to signs displayed on private property. Ms. Purves said the intent is to avoid regulating the content of signs on private properties,including noncommercial signs allowed in residential districts. Commissioner Tift noted that the hillside at the intersection of l ls'Street and Kitsap Way is a popular site for political signs and is part of the City's right-of-way. He asked if the City or candidate removes the signs from this area following an election. Ms.Satter answered that the Public Works Department removes signage within the public rights-of-way,and it can be done without notification. Commissioner Tift summarized that, as currently proposed, a political or other type of noncommercial sign could remain on a private property indefmitely. Commissioner Goodnow asked about other alternatives for limiting the time that temporary signs can be out on private property. Ms. Purves said it is difficult to say that certain signs can be out for longer periods than others types of signs. Some cities have tried to limit temporary signs based on material, which can also be problematic. Ms. Satter added that some cities have required a permit for every sign in order to establish timelines. A sticker could be placed on the sign to indicate the date it was installed and when the time limit expires. However,this concept would take extra administration,as well as time for each property owner to apply for a permit. Ms. Purves cautioned that the intent is to get away from a content-based regulation that requires the City to make a judgement call as to whether one message is preferable or more acceptable than another. Commissioner Goodnow asked about the maximum size limit for noncommercial speech signs in Single-Family Residential Zones. Ms. Satter answered that each single-family property is allowed a 2 square foot sign for home occupations,etc. In addition,noncommercial speech signs are allowed up to 32 square feet and may not extend beyond six feet above the grade. She clarified that no changes have been proposed to the sign area allowed in residential zones. The only change is to eliminate the requirement that political signs must be removed 14 days after an election. Commissioner Goodnow said he has put up temporary signs in public rights-of-way to advertise community fundraising events. He questioned if it would be possible to regulate noncommercial signs based on the type of event. Ms. Satter acknowledged that some public events are not commercially related, and a provision was added to allow advertising for public events to be considered noncommercial speech signs. Ms. Purves explained that the reason for making a distinction between commercial and noncommercial signs is that the courts have started to do it. She referred to a law review article published in May that looked at what circuit courts were doing with the decision. Although the Supreme Court's Reed vs. Gilbert,AZ decision did not,there is a long body of case law that clearly makes the distinction. Noncommercial speech is more in line with ideological views and free speech and first amendment protections, so making the distinction between commercial and noncommercial is a little more risky than other types of content based code. \ i P U\Lti Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes July 18,2016 Page 4 of 6 Attachment I Chair Wofford asked if there are any long-standing noncommercial speech signs that the staff is aware of in the City. Ms. Satter said she can think of several that are made of durable materials and have been up for years. Ms.Purves said common ones are environmental conservation and stormwater runoff signs that people put in their yards. Rather than being event related,they are considered noncommercial speech signs. Commissioner Tift referred to a"no parking"sign that a resident placed in the front yard to address the problem of people parking in front of the home. He asked if this type of sign would be allowed. Director Spencer said it would be allowed from a sign code standpoint,but citizens cannot regulate the public rights-of-way by using signs on their properties. Commissioner Tift referred to staff's recommendation that the time interval for changing the copy on readerboard signs be increased from 2 seconds to 8 seconds. He agreed that 2 seconds is a little short,but 8 seems too long. Ms. Satter said the proposed 8 second requirement would be consistent with Kitsap County, as well as fall within the range allowed by other jurisdictions that were surveyed. She explained that the longer time requirement is intended to address concerns about distractions to drivers. Commissioner Tift suggested that it would be appropriate to incorporate the term"equal to or greater than 2 seconds." Commissioner Tift said he supports the current provision for regulating auto dealership signs. He asked if the proposed amendment to BMC 20.52.110 would limit the dealerships' options. Ms. Satter answered no based on examples of sign applications received over the past 10 years. There has never been a request for more than three signs,and 150 square feet is a lot of sign area that can accommodate a number of franchise signs. Commissioner Tift specifically referred to the Westhill Ford sign, which appears to be billboard size. Ms. Satter agreed to verify the size of the sign and report back to the Commission. Director Spencer said it is important to understand that the proposed amendment would actually expand the provision by allowing every user in the Freeway Corridor Zone to have larger signs. Currently, the provision is only available to auto dealerships. Commissioner Tift asked if the proposed amendment to BMC 20.52.110 would only apply to businesses that front the freeway. Ms. Satter answered that it would apply to all properties within the Freeway Corridor Zone. However,specific height limitations would apply. Commissioner Tift noted that the proposed amendments cross out a lot of the existing language. Ms. Satter said most of the crossed-out language is a result of reworking the co-op sign provisions. The changes were based on public comment and the desire to incentivize the concept and open the provision for more businesses to utilize. Director Spencer summarized that the Commission will not have a meeting in August. The code,as currently written,will be published for public comment during the month of August. A public hearing has tentatively been scheduled for September 20t'. Chair Wofford closed the public workshop. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford advised that there is still a vacant position on the Commission. Director Spencer said she will interview potential candidates the PI week of August. Director Report Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the City changed its Community Development Block Grant Program in 2015 to create a more targeted approach for allocation. The review process is different, in that the City put out a request for proposals for projects within the target area of downtown. They are seeking a member of the Planning Commission to sit on the committee that reviews the proposals. She referred to the time schedule,acknowledging it will require a significant time commitment. The City Council will appoint the delegates to the Project Review Committee in August,so having a selected candidate now would be ideal. A training date is scheduled for September 12th, and staff will deliver the applications to the committee members on September 23`x. The interviews with applicants will take place on September 26th and 27th. The final recommendation to the City Council is targeted for September 28`s. ,,,,‘,(1 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes • July 18,2016--Page 5of6 Attachment I Chair Wofford recalled that he served on the committee in 2015 and found it interesting. However,he is not available to participate this year. There were no volunteers. Commissioners were asked to consider the opportunity and notify staff by July 22°d of their desire to participate. Director Spencer reminded the Commissioners that their August meeting was cancelled. The next regular meeting will be September 20th. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business Commissioner Tift said he is always impressed with the quality of the minutes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: _mow ► � • ea L S• cer, Stuart Stuart Nethery,Vice-Chair Executive ecre ,- Planning Commission • 1u u.0.c(l Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes July 18,2016—Page 6 of 6 Attachment I 1'ITOv1 : [) CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 20,2016 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Nethery called the regular meeting of the Bremerton PIanning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Vice Chair Nethery Andrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Commissioner Goodnow(arrived at 5:35) Allison Satter,Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Jones Kelli Lambert,Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Neff Kylie Purves,Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Strube Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Chair Wofford(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2016 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, WITH COMMISSIONER JONES ABSTAINING. (Note: Commissioner Goodnow was not present to vote on the minutes.) PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public(public comments on any item not on the agenda) Vice-Chair Nethery asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Amendments to Bremerton Municipal Sign Code Regulations Attachment I Ms. Satter explained that the subject of the hearing is the proposed amendments related to the sign provision in the Bremerton Municipal Code(BMC). She reminded the Commission of a recent Supreme Court decision(Reed vs.the Town of Gilbert) in which a church sued the Town of Gilbert, Arizona, because it felt its free-speech sign was being regulated differently than other free-speech signs. The Town of Gilbert could not provide justification for this differentiation and the Supreme Court ruled its sign code was not content neutral and consistent. The intent of the proposed amendments is to make the City's sign code provisions consistent with this most recent court ruling. Ms. Satter advised that the Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint document that outlines how Bremerton should develop,and it contains a number of policies and goals that help support the City's vision for the future. It is important to consider these goals and policies when reviewing Development Code Amendments,to ensure the two documents are consistent. She specifically reviewed the following goals and policies: • Goal LU1: Plan for Bremerton's population and employment growth. • Policy LUI(A): Implement design guidelines that complement the designated purpose and scale of the neighborhoods. • Policy LU2(E): Promote exposure of City businesses and community events by signage that is proportional to the intensity of the land-use designation,while recognizing the existing character of the neighborhood. • Policy LU1-Cen(A): Adopt sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale. • Policy LU2(D): Provide development incentives and flexibility within the regulations to encourage desirable design elements. • Goal ED2: Revitalize Bremerton's commercial district by upgrading and enhancing the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. • Policy ED2(A): Encourage upgrades and rehabilitation of existing commercial development through a wide variety of means. • Policy ED2(B): Ensure that new commercial development promotes street-level activation. Ms. Satter explained that while the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies, the zoning code is a regulatory document. She referred to BMC 20.52.010,which outlines the intent of the sign code provisions and advised that staff is not proposing any changes to this section at this time. The objectives of the sign code are to: • Recognize the importance of signs in the community. • Establish regulations to protect the public from damage or injury attributable to distractions and obstructions caused by poorly designated or improperly located signs. • Stabilize or enhance the overall appearance of the community and protect property values. • Regulate the number,size,placement and physical characteristics of signs and sign structures. • Not restrict,limit or control the content of any sign message. For the record, Ms. Satter reviewed the current provisions for the Commission's information to demonstrate consistency throughout the sign code as follows: • Size requirements for building signs are consistent throughout all commercial zones in the City. Building signs in the commercial zone are allowed to be up to 2 times the lineal footage up to a maximum of 100 square feet or 10% of the building's facade. • Freestanding signs are regulated differently based on zoning. Larger freestanding signs are allowed in the Freeway Corridor and Industrial zones, which are located near highways and have higher speed roads and less foot traffic. The Downtown and District Centers are high-density urban areas that tend to be walkable with slower traffic, and the larger signs may not be as appropriate. The standard sign size allowed in the Downtown and District Center zones is 60 square feet and up to 8 feet tall. There is slower traffic and more foot traffic in the Neighborhood Center,where the standard sign size allowed is 60 square feet with a maximum height of 6 feet. Ms.Satter referred to Attachment A of the Staff Report,which outlines the proposed amendments. She reviewed each of the amendments as follows: )I(IN L(I Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2016- Page 2 of 6 Attachment I • BMC 20.42 Definitions. As new technology comes into play, portable signs on vehicles are becoming more prevalent, and the intent of this proposed amendment is to regulate them as "portable signs." As proposed the definition of"portable sign"would be changed to include this sign type. • BMC 20.52.040 Exempt Signs. This change is directly related to the Supreme Court decision that code provisions for real estate and temporary signage must be more general. Rather than saying that"real estate signs for sale of single-family dwelling units,"are exempt,Item J would be changed to say,"signs displayed on a lot with a property for sale or rent"are exempt. In addition, Item K would also be reworded to say, "signs displayed on a lot where construction is taking place." • BMC 20.52.050 Prohibited Signs. The provision relative to readerboard signs would be amended to allow copy to change every 8 seconds rather than the current 2 seconds. This change would be consistent with Kitsap County's current requirement. She commented that the Commission could choose to recommend Commissioner Tift's suggestion that copy be allowed to change every 2 but not greater than 8 seconds. However, they should keep in mind that the only time the City would be able to do code enforcement is when someone is doing something shorter than 2 seconds. She recommended that 3 or 4 should be the quickest change allowed. Commissioner Goodnow noted that there are signs that have a slow-moving background,which are easier on the eye and do not seem to be as distracting. He asked how the sign code would address these sign types. Ms. Satter answered that, as currently written,anything flashing or moving is prohibited. The intent is to create less distraction,and the provisions would be consistent for all readerboard signs in the City. • BMC 20.52.070 Sign Placement Requirements. The language in this provision would be changed from "temporary signs advertising a public event which meets City approval,"to"temporary banner signs erected by the City." The intent is for the language to be more generalized. • BMC 20.52.085 Political Signs. This provision was particularly impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. The proposed amendment would rename the entire section"Noncommercial Speech Signs." The amendment would also remove provisions that require the removal of signs after an event. The intent is to be consistent for all noncommercial-speech signs. • BMC 20.52.090 General Sign Regulations. Two additional provisions were added to this section. First, provisions for illumination were added,including nighttime adjustments. As LED lighting becomes more prevalent, it is important to have some provision to deal with undue brightness. Secondly,she recalled that the Commission previously discussed concern that removing the timeline for political signs could result in numerous signs that are old and in disrepair. A provision was added that requires all signs to remain in good repair. Good repair is defined as what can be seen from the property line and applies to both permanent and temporary signage. A permit may be required,depending on the scope of the needed work. • BMC 20.52.100 Commercial District Sign Regulations. In this section,"shopping center"was renamed to"large multiple occupant development" to be more generalized and to be consistent with other portions of the code. In addition,the co-op sign provisions were reworked. Previously,properties along Wheaton and Kitsap Way that do not have street frontage were not allowed to have off-premise signs. The co-op sign provisions that were adopted in 2014 allowed properties that are one parcel back from Wheaton and Kitsap Way an opportunity for signage,but only if there is a transfer of development rights,meaning that there could not be a freestanding sign on the property and on Kitsap and Wheaton Ways. As proposed, the amendments would extend the provision to deeper parcels along Wheaton and Kitsap Ways, but it would also reemphasize that a transfer of development rights is required. This provision also encourages the removal of multiple signs. • BMC 20.52.110 Auto Dealership Sign Regulations. This provision cannot be considered content neutral and should be removed. However,it is important not to penalize auto dealerships,either. Because auto dealerships are only allowed in the Freeway Corridor Zones, staff is recommended that Figure 20.52(a) be revised to allow all freestanding signs in the Freeway Corridor Zone to be a maximum of 150 square feet in size. Currently,sign size in this zone is limited to 100 square feet. Questions were raised at the last meeting about the LED sign on SR-3,and the permit that was submitted in January identifies the sign size as 106 square feet. It was noted that the City only measures the areas where there is wording. • BMC 20.52.120 Residential District Sign Regulations. The provision that limited signs in multifamily development to just 4 square feet was removed to be consistent with the sign area allowed in the residential zone. • BMC 20.52.180 Nonconforming Signs. At the recommendation of the Commission,the amortization requirement was removed in 2014. The code required that nonconforming signs be brought up to code consistency based on a threshold of$50,000 of improvements. However,the provision still only applies to on-premise signs. The intent k rl \c l Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2016—Page 3 of 6 Attachment I of the proposed amendment is to provide consistency between the on-premise and off-premise sign provisions. In addition,a portion of this section was relocated to Subsection iii for ease of reading. Examples of nonconforming signs that have been recently replaced were provided. • Figure 20.52(A) Zone Specific Size and Design Requirements. In this amendment, the figure was revised to consolidate where appropriate, such as the centers standards. The Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton was also added to be consistent with the subarea plan. The footnotes were revised to allow commercial signs along Wheaton and Kitsap Ways to increase their height to 15 feet, which is consistent with Kitsap County's rules. However, the phrase, "on state highway routes of Wheaton and Kitsap Ways" was added to clarify that the provisions do not apply to Lower Wheaton Way or the Manette area. Ms. Satter advised that Chair Wofford provided a recommendation via email for continued education on why the update is required throughout the next process. Staff believes that continued educational outreach is important,as well. However,it is also important to acknowledge that all jurisdictions are in the same situation and must update their sign code regulations. Commissioner Nerf identified two minor typographical errors in both attachments, which have been corrected in the documents before the Commission for action. Ms.Satter referred to a letter from Priscilla Bailey. Ms. Bailey voiced concern about political signs that have no timeframe for removal. Ms.Satter explained that the City needs to be consistent with the multiple court cases that exist. The options to consider are either no timeframe, as currently proposed, or require a timeframe for all noncommercial speech signs, which would require a permit and additional staff time to manage. Ms. Bailey was also concerned that business owners would not know how to put their readerboard signs to "night time" setting to reduce brightness. Ms. Satter explained that undue brightness extends beyond the property line and could be a driving distraction and/or hazard. She recommended the condition remain, as proposed. Ms. Bailey commended the City on the proposed revisions to the co-op sign provisions, particularly allowing a 15-foot height on Wheaton and Kitsap Ways and increasing the rate of copy change from 2 to 8 seconds. She also indicated she was happy with the proposed new maintenance requirement, but wanted to see something more for abandoned signs. Ms. Satter reviewed that if a property experiences redevelopment over $50,000, the nonconforming signs would have to be removed or conform. However, the code is minimal on abandoned signs for properties not being cununtly utilized. Currently,only signs that are dangerous are required to be removed. Ms. Satter reviewed that following the public hearing and Planning Commission deliberations, the Commission can recommend approval of the amendments as proposed, recommend approval of the amendments with amending motions, or continue the hearing to address additional items. Vice Chair Nethery opened the public hearing. Jeff Coughlin,Bremerton,asked if the proposed new maintenance provision would apply to existing illuminated signs that have burned-out light bulbs. If not, he asked the Commission to consider including it in the proposed amendment. Ms. Satter answered that, as written, the provision would not address signs with burned-out lights. However,the Commission could add language to require replacement of illumination as it ceases. No one else indicated a desire to participate,and the public portion of the hearing was closed by Vice Chair Nethery. Commissioner Tift agreed that the maintenance provision should also address illumination. He also requested additional clarification on the current provision that limits the size of building signs. Ms. Satter referred to BMC 20.52.100(B)(2), which reads, "A building sign attached individually shall not exceed 100 square feet in area except it may exceed the maximum if the total area is less than 10%of the total building facade area of the side with the signage." She said the intent is to limit the size of signs on large buildings with long facades,but also allow the signs to be proportional to the size of the facade. Commissioner Tift summarized that the sign could exceed 100 square feet if the façade was greater than 1,000 lineal feet. Director Spencer said each sign would be allowed to be proportional to each space,and the notion is that every tenant would be allowed a prominent sign on the building. Vice Chair Nethery said he shares Ms. Bailey's concern about removing the timeline for when political signs must be removed. While he understands that the sign code must be content neutral, he is bothered about trying to be so politically \ i »WW cel Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2016—Page 4 of 6 Attachment I correct that it no longer makes sense. It is clear that elections are temporary events, so political signs could be classified as temporary signs. Ms. Satter explained that the Supreme Court's decision was that political signs are considered noncommercial-speech signs,and cities cannot make a differentiation between ideological signs,political signs,event signs, etc. Assistant City Attorney Purves agreed and emphasized that the content of the sign cannot be the basis for the regulation. Commissioner Nerf pointed out that some political signs,such as signs that support gun rights,are not tied to an election. It would be very difficult to put a time limit on one type of political sign and not another. Commissioner Goodnow said he understands the size limitations for noncommercial-speech signs on private residential properties, but he questioned how the sign code would apply to signs in the right-of-way. Ms. Satter answered that the City's sign code applies to private properties. The Public Works Department's policies regulate signs within the streets and rights-of-way. Commissioner Goodnow summarized that the proposed amendments would only impact signs on private properties and would not apply to political signs that are placed all up and down the public rights-of-way. Commissioner Goodnow asked if it would be possible to establish a threshold by which more permanent signs would be required to obtain permits. Ms.Satter agreed that there could be a provision for a different timeline,but it would have to be based on materials and not content. Director Spencer emphasized that this approach would require permitting,which would result in additional staff cost. Given the current staffing level, having the ability to issue sign permits for single-family residential homes would become a significant challenge for the department. Assistant City Attorney Purves also cautioned that there are so many different sign materials, that this approach would be difficult to regulate. In addition to requiring additional staff time to implement, codes that are content neutral based on sign material are very long because they try to incorporate any material that a sign might be made of. Commissioner Tift referred to the large 4' x 8'plywood sign on Kitsap Way just past the Oyster Bay Inn that can be seen from both directions. He asked if this sign,which is on private property,could remain in place indefinitely or until the next election. He also asked who would be responsible for its removal if it becomes dilapidated. Ms.Satter said the temporary sign code includes a provision that requires the removal of noncommercial-speech or banner signs that can be seen from the property line if there is evidence of deterioration or the need of general maintenance. Commissioner Goodnow asked how the City would enforce this provision,and Ms.Satter answered that enforcement would be complaint based. Commissioner Goodnow asked if complaint-based enforcement could also be used to implement a time limit for signs on private properties. Assistant City Attorney Purves cautioned that a political sign cannot be regulated any differently than other types of noncommercial-speech signs. Each property owner is given a certain amount of sign space to use on their personal property based on the zoning district,the City cannot regulate the signs based on what they say. Commissioner Nerf agreed with Mr. Coughlin's recommendation that a provision be added to address defective lighting on signs. Perhaps language to the effect of"failing to convey the message." Ms. Satter agreed it would be appropriate to add additional language to BMC 20.52.090(G)(2). • Ms. Satter requested additional input from the Commission about the provision related to the timeframe for changing the copy on readerboard signs. Commissioner Tift said the intent of his previous suggestion was to provide more latitude to business owners. However,he commented that a 2-second timeline could almost appear to be a strobe light. Ms. Satter pointed out that Kitsap County has an 8-second timeframe. The Commission indicated support for staff's proposed timeframe. COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.52 AND 20.42 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT A,BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT B. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER NERF MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK ON LANGUAGE IN THE MAINTENANCE SECTION (BMC 20.52.090(G)(2) TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS ABOUT THE SIGNAGE "FAILING TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE." COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED 5-1,WITH COMMISSIONER JONES VOTING IN OPPOSITION. iI L(I Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2016- Page 5 of 6 Attachment I THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, WITH COMMISSIONER JONES ABSTAINING. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Vice Chair Nethery welcomed new Commissioner Deanna Jones. Director Report Director Spencer also welcomed Commissioner Jones,noting that the Commission is fully appointed. Director Spencer reported that, since the Commission's July meeting, the appeal period of the Comprehensive Plan was completed,and no appeals were filed. Therefore,the Comprehensive Plan stands as adopted. Director Spencer reported that staff is currently working with the Department of Ecology (DOE) on the Shoreline Master Program(SMP)amendments. Following the local process, the document was elevated to the DOE for review and a public process. At a recent Director's Conference,she learned that the DOE is working on amendments that will coordinate the two process in conjunction with each other. While this is great news, it does not apply to the City's current update. Ms.Satter reported that the DOE received four comments relative to the SMP. Two were positive in nature, including one from the Navy asking the City to verify that there was no federal land on the SMP. Other comments were received from the Chico Creek Task Force and the Suquamish Tribe. The DOE is waiting for the City to reply to the comments, and then they will determine whether or not a public hearing is needed. Director Spencer announced that the City is currently in litigation with the County, as the City filed an appeal of the County's Comprehensive Plan Update. The appeal is primarily related to Growth Management Act issues pertaining annexations and the City's expectation of an associated Urban Growth Area next to the City. Director Spencer advised that,at their October meeting,the Commission will be working with Public Works staff relative to incorporating low-impact development provisions into the development regulations and citywide. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: •i`-a L Si icer, ; C 1 Nick Wofford,Chair Executive Seer-KI Planning Commission HH\,,f Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2016—Page 6 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 5312 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sign Standards" and amending Section 20.42.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to definitions of portable signs. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Zoning Code to update provisions relating to signs; and WHEREAS,the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020 (d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, the State Growth Management Act, and other applicable regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2016 and July 19, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted workshops on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2016 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016 a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed action and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2016 the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the amendments for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2016 the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; and 1 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs WHEREAS, on November 16, 2016 the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered all testimony prior to their decision: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are adopted and incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 3. Section 20.42.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled"Definitions" is hereby amended by amending the definition of"Portable sign" to read as follows: "Portable sign" means any sign designed to be moved easily and not permanently affixed to the ground or to a structure or building. A-frame or sandwich board signs,end movable readerboard signs, and signs that are mounted, attached or painted on a trailer, boat or motor vehicle, which is parked, stored or displayed conspicuously in a manner intended to attract the attention of the public are examples. SECTION 4. Section 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sign Standards" is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 20.52 SIGN STANDARDS 20.52.010 INTENT. The intent of the sign requirements chapter is to recognize the importance of signs in the community and establish regulations to protect the public from damage or injury attributable to distractions and obstructions caused by poorly designed or improperly located signs. These regulations are also intended, in part, to stabilize or enhance the overall appearance of the community, and to protect property values. This chapter is intended to regulate the number, size,placement and physical characteristics of signs and sign structures. These regulations are not intended to and do not restrict, limit or control the content of any sign message. 20.52.020 APPLICABILITY. These regulations shall apply in all zoning districts and may be subject to additional requirements of certain districts, or to state regulations. In cases of conflict, the most stringent requirement shall prevail. 2 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs 20.52.030 SIGN PERMIT. (a) Permit Required.No sign shall be placed, erected, or displayed without first obtaining a sign permit unless exempt under BMC 20.52.040. (b) Removal of Nonconforming Signs. A property containing a nonconforming sign shall not be allowed a new or additional sign on the property until the nonconforming sign is removed or brought into conformance with the requirements of this chapter and the underlying zone. (c) Permit Application. An application for a sign permit shall include the following: (1) Signature of the property owner or their designated agent; (2) Site plan drawn to scale showing existing buildings, streets, freestanding and building signs,utility poles, and other structures within fifty(50) feet of the proposed sign; (3) Elevation drawings of the structural details of the proposed sign including dimensions, height, illumination methods and structure supports; and (4) Landscaping plan showing planting materials and patterns. 20.52.040 EXEMPT SIGNS. The following signs are exempt from the provisions of this chapter,but may be subject to other provisions of the zoning code or building code: (a) Traffic signs, signals,wayfinding signs, and other traffic control devices erected by the City or other public authority. (b) Public notices pertaining to public health or safety issues, or for notification of legal or legislative action erected by the City or other public authority, of a temporary nature. (c) Permanent plaques, cornerstones,nameplates, and other building identification markings attached to or carved into the building materials and which are integral parts of the structure. (d) Signs within buildings,provided they do not include moving, flashing or animated signs that are visible from any private or public roadway, or from adjacent properties. (e) Legal nonconforming signs. (f) Incidental signs intended for public information or convenience and which consist of no more than ten(10) square feet for a combination of such signs. These may include restroom signs,hours of operation signs, address numbers,help wanted, credit card signs, and similar. (g) The American flag, State of Washington flag, and other political or special purpose flags that are not intended to contribute to a commercial advertising display. (h) Wall graphics of an artistic nature and that do not conform to the definition of"sign." (i) Public information/identification approved through a conditional use permit process pursuant to BMC 20.58.020. (j) ' -. - . _• . - . • : _ -• _ _ ••: . . Signs displayed on a lot with a property for sale or rent. 3 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (k) .. . . . .. _ signs, Signs displayed on a lot where construction is taking place, provided they are removed prior to occupancy approval of the building. j1) Political Noncommercial speech signs meeting the provisions in BMC 20.020.52.085. (m) Signs not readable from public or private right-of-way or waterway. (n) Signs intended to for general public information, such as bulletin board/kiosk, that accommodates changeable copy such as private or public notices, special event information, and other short-term messages, at a scale suitable for pedestrians and not intended to be read by passing motorists, and not for commercial advertising purposes. 20.52.050 PROHIBITED SIGNS. The following signs are prohibited within the City limits of Bremerton and shall be subject to removal through amortization or other means: (a) Strobe lights or any other flashing, moving, video or animated features that are visible beyond any property line. Readerboard or message center signs that change copy no more frequently than at two(2)eight(8) second intervals are exempt from this provision. (b) Pole signs in all zones except the freeway corridor(FC) zone and the industrial (I)zone. (c) Private signs placed within a public right-of-way, except a projecting sign may be permitted over a sidewalk if a clearance of at least eight(8) feet is maintained between the sidewalk and the bottom of the sign. (d) Any sign that is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to public safety due to its design, materials, physical condition, or placement. (e) Signs painted, attached to, or otherwise supported by rock formations, utility poles, trees or other plant materials. (f) Bench signs, when installed within the public right-of-way. When on private property, the size of a bench sign will be counted toward the total allowable sign area. (g) Portable signs within the public right-of-way except portable signs per BMC 20.52.160. (h) Off-premises signs including billboards,but not including co-op signs-e portable signs, or noncommercial speech signs where permitted. 20.52.060 SIGN MEASUREMENTS. (a) The area of sign faces shall be measured as the area bounded by any six (6) straight lines intersecting at right angles, and shall include any surrounding frames or cabinet edges. (b) Sign area does not include supports, foundations or structures that are not part of the sign. (c) Only one (1) side of a double-faced sign is counted in the sign's total area. (d) Multiple copy signs or shopping center signs consisting of several individual signs on the same support structures are calculated as the total of all individual sign components. 4 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (e) A round or cylindrical sign is calculated as the maximum area that can be seen at one(1) time from one (1)position, or fifty(50)percent of the total area, whichever is greater. (f) The height of a sign is measured from grade, as defined, to the highest point of the sign. (g) Sign clearances are measured from grade directly below the sign to the bottom of the sign or sign frame. (h) Street corner signs (at an intersection) shall be assigned to one (1) of the frontages by the applicant and shall conform to the requirements of that frontage only. (i) Portable signs shall be calculated as part of the total freestanding sign area available to the site. 20.52.070 SIGN PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. (a) All signs, including supporting structures, shall be erected or placed totally within the boundaries of the site and not within any public right-of-way, except for the following: (1) Public authority and other traffic-related signs; (2) Temporary banner signs erected by the City ublic (3) Approved signs overhanging public walkways; and (4) Approved portable signs per BMC 20.52.160. (b) Intersections standard. A vision clearance setback shall be maintained of at least fifteen (15) feet from the edge of all private and public roadways, alleys and driveway intersections. (c) General road standard. A vision clearance setback shall be maintained of at least ten(10) feet from the edge of existing or planned roadways. Signs may be allowed within the clear-vision setback if: (1) A pole sign is allowed by the zone; (2) The top of the sign is three(3) feet or less above the grade; (3) The bottom of the sign is eight(8) feet or greater above the grade; or (4) The posts and support structure have a diameter no greater than twelve(12) inches within this area. (d) A pedestrian clearance is required for any projecting sign(8) feet above grade or sidewalk as measured to the bottom of the sign. (e) A projecting sign may extend over a public right-of-way or public pedestrian walkway up to six (6)feet past the property line,but in no case shall the sign extend over a street or other area used by motor vehicles. (f) The setbacks for freestanding signs may be reduced to zero (0),provided the applicant provide justification and documented proof that the sign's placement will not hinder vision clearance for existing and future development on the site. (g) Freestanding signs shall not extend beyond property lines. 20.52.080 TEMPORARY SIGNS. All temporary signs are subject to the placement, size, and height requirements of this chapter, and the requirements set forth in the underlying zone. Additionally, the 5 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs following requirements shall apply: (a) The sign area of individual temporary signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet; except a banner may be permitted with a sign area of up to one hundred (100) square feet. (b) The maximum height of a temporary sign is six (6) feet, except a banner may be allowed a maximum height of twenty(20) feet. (c) Signs may be displayed for a period not to exceed sixty(60) days. Any time a temporary sign is removed by a business, it shall not be replaced by the same or other temporary sign for a period of not less than ninety(90) consecutive days. (d) Temporary signs meeting the following standards are exempt from the requirements of BMC 20.52.030 and BMC 20.52.090 through 20.52.140: (1) The sign is displayed for a period of seven(7) days or less; (2) The area of the sign is twenty-four(24) square feet or less; and (3) The height of the sign is six (6) feet or less. (e) Temporary signs shall not be permanently attached to the ground, a building, or to any other structure, other than what is necessary to secure it to prevent theft,wind damage or safety problems. (f) Advertising wind signs or devices that flutter,wave, sparkle, or otherwise move from the pressure of the wind are permitted for specific promotions or events but shall not be permanently displayed. 20.52.085 POLITICAL SICNS. - -- - - • •--- - - . _ __ • , - -(fellewingfecittifeffients a) The sign area of political signs shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. (b) The maximum height of a political sign shall be six(6) feet. 20.52.085 NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH SIGNS Noncommercial speech signs express noncommercial speech such as public community events, religious, political, social, or other philosophical messages. Noncommercial speech signs do not promote commercial products or services. The content of such signs are not regulated, but are subject to the following requirements: (a) The sign area of noncommercial speech sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. (b) The maximum height is limited to six (6) feet. (c) Noncommercial speech signs that do not comply with the requirements of this section shall be subject to the permit requirements, sign area, setback and other provisions of this chapter. All noncommercial speech signs shall comply with General Signs Regulations per BMC 20.52.090. 6 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs 20.52.090 GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS. The following regulations apply to signs in all zone districts: (a) Vision Clearance. Signs shall conform to the clearance requirements of BMC 20.52.060. (b) Extension Above Rooftop. No sign that is attached to a building shall extend above the highest point of the roof except for commercial and center zones up to fifty(50)percent of the area of a wall sign that is integrated into an architectural facade design element to define the primary entry to the premises may project above the parapet of a flat roof; provided,that all components of the sign are only visible to public view on the primary entry side of the building. (c) Window Signs. Signs placed on the inside of windows and directed toward the outside of a building shall be included in the total sign area calculations. (d) Canopies and Awnings. Signs placed on projecting canopies and awnings, whether lighted or not, shall be calculated only for the area of the canopy or awning taken up by the sign itself. (e) Landscaping. All freestanding signs shall have a landscaped island at the base of the sign equal to, or greater than, the sign area. (f) Illumination. In order to avoid unreasonably distracting pedestrians or motorists,nearby residents, and to protect marine life, illumination from or upon any sign shall be shielded or directed so as to avoid undue brightness, glare or reflection of light on private or public property and waterways. Illumination shall be adjusted to ensure there is no undue brightness. "Undue brightness" is illumination in excess of 0.3 footcandles above ambient light conditions. (g) Sign Maintenance. All signs erected in the City of Bremerton are required to remain in good repair. The following requirements shall apply for sign maintenance: (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain or permit to be maintained on any premises owned or controlled by said person any sign which is in a damaged or deteriorated condition and constitutes a danger or hazard to public safety. (2) Sign components and materials shall be kept in good repair which shall include the sign being free of holes, chipping, cracking,peeling, fading,rusting or nonfunctional components that is detectable from beyond the property line. Any sign in violation of this Section shall be removed or repaired by the owner of the sign or the owner of the premises. A permit may be required for maintenance work. (3) Temporary signs,Noncommercial Speech Signs or banners showing evidence of deterioration, such as rips, tears, color fading, frayed edges or otherwise showing need of general maintenance that can be seen from the property line shall be removed, repaired or replaced promptly(provided the replacement complies with all other portions of this chapter). 20.52.100 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS SIGN REGULATIONS. The following standards shall apply to signs placed on property zoned commercial: (a) Freestanding Signs. (1) No use or combination of uses on a single lot or building shall have more than one(1) freestanding sign per street frontage, with the following exceptions: 7 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (i) Parcels with five hundred (500) feet of continuous frontage may have one (1)additional sign. (ii) Co-Op Signs. See subsection (d) of this section. (2) Maximum Height and Design. Freestanding signs shall comply with the height and design requirements set forth in Figure 20.52(a). (b) Building Signs. (1) Commercial Uses. The building sign standards shall be in accordance with the following: (i) Sign Area. Signs attached to a building may have an aggregated area that shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one(1) lineal foot of building facade width. (ii) Maximum Sign Size. A building sign attached individually shall not exceed one hundred(100) square feet in area, except it may exceed the maximum if the total sign area is less than ten(10)percent of the total building facade area of the side with the signage. (2) Industrial Uses. The building sign standards for industrial uses and other uses not engaged in the sale of goods or services to the public shall be in accordance with the following: (i) Sign Area. The maximum aggregated area for all building signs attached to a single building shall be one hundred(100) square feet. (3) Number of Signs. There is no limit to the number of individual building signs,provided the maximum aggregated sign area is not exceeded. (4) Illumination. Signs may be illuminated directly, indirectly, or internally,provided the lighting is directed away from other land uses, and away from oncoming traffic. (c) _ _ ._ •: _ _ • _ _ Large Multiple-Occupant Development. A shopping center,professional office complex, or similar large multiple- occupancy development may have an identification sign to a maximum size of three hundred(300) square feet placed along one(1) street frontage,provided the parcel has an area of at least eight(8) acres, and the sign is no closer than one hundred(100) feet from an adjacent property on the same side of the street. (d) Co-Op Signs. A co-op sign is intended to permit businesses that do not have street frontages on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. Co-op signs are an incentive for the consolidation of signage. A co-op sign transfers the right to place a freestanding sign from a non-fronting parcel to a parcel with street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way. (1) Co-op sign eligibility. Co-op signs may be permitted along Wheaton or Kitsap Way provided all the following are met: (i) At a minimum, two parcels are coordinating to create consolidated signage to reduce visual clutter and limit distractions to pedestrians and motor vehicles. It will be required for the non-fronting parcel to transfer the right to develop an on-site- freestanding-sign to the parcel fronting Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way. The owners of both the fronting parcel and the non-fronting parcel(s) shall record a "Notice to Title" prepared by the Department recognizing the presence of a Co-op sign with the Kitsap County Auditor. The notice shall be notarized and the applicant must submit proof that the notice has been legally recorded before the sign permit is issued. 8 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (ii) The non-fronting business shall not have a property line fronting Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way. (iii) The parcel where the Co-op signage is installed shall have at least seventy-five(75) feet of continuous street frontage on Wheaton Way (defined as Wheaton Way from Riddell Road to Sheridan Road), or Kitsap Way. (iv) The parcels (fronting and non-fronting) must share a property line, or for non-fronting businesses that do not have a shared property line with the fronting business, a Co-op signage may be allowed if all of the following are met: a. The structure containing the non-fronting businesses is within eight hundred (800) feet of Wheaton or Kitsap Way; and b. The non-fronting parcel is within four hundred (400) feet from the fronting parcel where the Co-op sign is to be installed; and c. There is no public right-of-way between the non- fronting and fronting parcel where the Co-op sign is to be installed; and d. Vehicle or pedestrian access to the non-fronting business is adjacent to, or is in close proximity to, the fronting business. (v) Any existing freestanding sign(s) on the fronting and non- fronting business should be removed prior to installation of the Co-op sign, unless allowed elsewhere in the code. (2) Size and Quantity. Cop-op signs shall be in accordance with the following standards: (i) A parcel may only participate in one(1) co-op sign. a. The non-fronting parcel may place a directional sign at each entrance, not to exceed ten(10) square feet in size. (ii) The Co-op sign is the only permitted freestanding sign on the participating parcels, except as provided above. (iii) The sign does not exceed the maximum height limit as identified in Figure 20.52(a). (iv) A Co-op sign shall not to exceed one hundred(100) square feet, except for the following: a. When a Co-op sign has multiple non-fronting parcels, a twenty-five(25) percent bonus in square footage is permitted(for a maximum sign area of one hundred and twenty-five (125) square feet). (1) The parcel fronting Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way shall have at least and and 9 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs one co op sign, not to exceed one hundred(100) square feet; however, the co op sign may contain signage for more than one(1)nonfronting business; and(5) In the event (i) The shared sign is the only permitted freestanding sign on the section. {6) The nonfronting parcel is limited to one(1)co op sign on Kitsap - - - - (i) The nonfronting parcel may place a directional sign at each entrance, not to exceed ten(10) square feet in size. - . - . 11• . • - - • -" . .. . . -- ! .. -- - • . - - . . co op sign with the Kitsap County Auditor when required by the Department. The notice recorded before the sign permit is issued. 1 I . • I _ . - • • . • •I . requ-ients: owflefshilN (2) The automobile dealership district sign shall be limited to identifying (3) The total area of the sign shall •. - ! . .. - -- each dealer franchise in the group (example: a dealership group with two (2)dealer (100) square feet); ('I) The maximum total sign area in no case shall exceed one hundred ! . .. - _ • -- • . .. - • . . . . !! . .. - -- . . . • {5) The square footage of the sign shall be deducted from the total aggregated signage allotted to the parcel on which the sign is placed; 10 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (7) A master signage plan is required to be submitted prior to issuance of 20.52.120 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS. The following regulations apply to properties in residential zones: (a) Freestanding Signs. (1) Entrance Signs. One (1) freestanding sign may be permitted at each street entrance to a neighborhood, subdivision, manufactured park, apartment/condominium complex, or other homogeneous residential area,provided: (i) The sign specifically identifies the development only; (i ) The sign area is fifty(50) square feet or less. (32) Individual Properties. Each residential property may have one(1) freestanding permanent sign that shall not exceed two (2) square feet in sign area. (43) Height. Freestanding signs shall have a maximum height of six (6) feet as measured from grade directly below the sign to the highest point on the sign or its support structure. (b) Building Signs. (1) The freestanding sign limitations prescribed in subsections (a)(1) through(3) of this section may be applied to building signs in lieu of freestanding signs. (c) Resident name plaques and address numbers shall not be included in total sign area calculations,but shall be limited to a size and character of other such signs in the immediate neighborhood. (d) Advertising wind signs or devices that flutter, wave, revolve, or sparkle, or are otherwise moved by the wind are prohibited. 20.52.130 SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGN REGULATIONS. When a sign that is not otherwise regulated by this title and is located in a residential zone, the special purpose sign regulations shall apply. Specifically, special purpose signs are signs located in a residential zone that are for either(1)commercial uses, such as an adaptive reuse, or legally established nonconforming commercial use, or (2)noncommercial signs such as signs for churches, schools and parks. The following shall apply: (a) Freestanding Signs. (1) Sign Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be limited to fifty(50) square feet. (2) Number of Signs. Only one(1) freestanding sign is allowed per each street frontage. (3) Height. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed six(6) feet. (b) Building Signs. 11 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (1) Sign Area. The aggregate area of all building signs,projecting signs, and other signs attached to buildings shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. (2) Number of Signs. There is no limit to the number of individual building signs,provided the maximum aggregated sign area is maintained. (c) Illumination. When located within a residential zone, the sign shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 20.52.140 DOWNTOWN AND CENTERS SIGN REGULATIONS. The following standards shall apply to signs located in a center: (a) Freestanding Signs. (1) Sign Area. The requirements prescribed in BMC 20.52.100(a)(1) shall apply, except wide parcels shall be limited to only one (1) freestanding sign not to exceed one hundred(100) square feet. (2) Spacing. Freestanding signs shall be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet from adjacent properties, except this may be modified by the Director where such factors as the width of the lot or the driveway access makes compliance impossible. (3) Maximum Height and Design. Freestanding signs shall comply with the height and design requirements set forth in Figure 20.52(a). (b) Building Signs. The requirements prescribed in BMC 20.52.100(b) shall apply. (c) Moving, flashing, or animated signs are prohibited in downtown and centers zones. 20.52.150 VARIATIONS TO SIGN REGULATIONS. (a) The Director shall have the authority to grant administrative approval for minor adjustments to sign heights, numbers of signs, sign placement, and sign size, provided: (1) The adjustments do not exceed ten(10)percent of the basic requirement; and (2) The adjustment is based on a hardship or problem with the site, existing building placements, or poor site visibility, and not based on economic factors or personal design preference. (b) A request for adjustments beyond ten(10)percent shall be processed as a variance pursuant to BMC 20.58.030. 20.52.160 PORTABLE SIGNS. Portable signs may be placed on sidewalks or portions of the pedestrian public right-of-way subject to the following conditions: (a) A minimum four(4) feet of unobstructed sidewalk or pedestrian path must be maintained. A portable sign shall not be allowed on sidewalks with less than four(4) feet in width. (b) Portable signs may not be placed in the driving lanes of a public street or in parking stalls on the public right-of-way. 12 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (c) One(1)portable sign is allowed for any licensed business. The sign must be displayed immediately adjacent to the main entrance of the business employing the sign. (d) Portable signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) inches in width or thirty-six (36) inches in height as displayed. (e) Portable signs shall be professionally lettered, neatly painted or assembled, and remain in good repair. (f) Portable signs shall be constructed to avoid being blown from their intended location and to avoid tipping or falling. (g) Portable signs shall not be internally lit,not have moving parts, nor shall any attachment or portion of the sign extend beyond the thirty-two (32) by thirty-six (36) inch maximum dimensions established in subsection(d) of this section. (h) Portable signs shall be displayed during daylight hours only and shall be removed by the business owner immediately after dusk each day. (i) Any site landscaping required by the City shall not be altered to accommodate a portable sign. (j) Portable signs shall not block intersections or otherwise constitute a public safety hazard. (k) Pursuant to Chapter 47.42 RCW and Chapter 468-66 WAC, placement of portable signs on the public right-of-way of SR 3, SR 303, SR 304, and SR 310 is prohibited. (1) Placement of portable signs on the public right-of-way in violation of this section will result in immediate removal of the sign from the public right-of-way by City personnel. 20.52.180 NONCONFORMING SIGNS. (a) Applicability. This section applies to the maintenance, repair, as appropriate, and removal of nonconforming signs. "Nonconforming sign" means a sign that was legally established,but no longer conforms to the current sign standards of this title. (b) Maintenance and Repair of Off-Premises Signs. Any nonconforming off- premises sign shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation, and be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this chapter,when one(1) or more of the following events occur: (1) Alterations to Sign. (i) Any structural alteration to an off-premises sign shall result in the loss of its nonconforming status. This does not include replacing the sign's message or painting. (ii) In no case shall an off-premises sign be permitted to be expanded or enlarged. Adding electronic components that move, flash, or change copy is not permitted. (2) Alteration to Associated Business or Site. Should a business or site with an off-premise nonconforming sign undergo remodel or site improvements the sign shall lose its nonconforming status under any of the following circumstances: 13 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs (i) The on-site renovation, construction, or other site improvements exceed seventy-five(75)percent of the assessed improvement value of the site; or (ii) On-site construction/improvements costs exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or (iii) Unless the structure was damaged by fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner or tenant and a permit is applied for within one(1) year of such fire or casualty (c) Maintenance and Repair of On-Premises Signs. Any nonconforming on- premises sign shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation, and be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this chapter,when one (1) or more of the following events occur: (1) Alterations to Sign. (i) If alterations are made to the sign that exceed twenty-five (25)percent of the replacement cost of the sign, it shall lose its nonconforming status; or (ii) For freestanding signs, refacing the sign with a new message is permitted; however, if the cabinetry housing the sign is removed, or is intended to be replaced, the sign shall lose its nonconforming status; or (iii) In no case shall an on-premises sign be permitted to be expanded or enlarged. (2) Alteration to Associated Business or Site. Should a business with a nonconforming sign undergo remodel or site improvements;unless the structure was .. _. - _. . . _ _ . . . , the sign shall lose its nonconforming status under any of the following circumstances: (i) The on-site renovation, construction, or other site improvements exceed seventy-five(75)percent of the assessed improvement value of the site; (ii) On-site construction/improvements costs exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or- (iii) Unless the structure was damaged by fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner or tenant and a permit is applied for within one(1) year of such fire or casualty. 20.52.190 GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY. (a) A sign that becomes nonconforming with respect to its setback from the edge of a public right-of-way as a result of a local, state, or federal government acquisition of property for right-of-way expansion shall be characterized as a legal nonconforming sign and shall be allowed subject to the requirements of this section. (b) The City may allow,by a Type II permit as prescribed in Chapter 20.02 BMC, the placement of a new sign or relocation of an existing sign within a required setback if it meets all of the following criteria: (1) The enforcement of this code would result in substantial hardship to the applicant because no feasible location exists to place a sign on the subject property other than in a required setback, and such hardship was created solely by local, state, or 14 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs federal government acquisition of property for right-of-way expansion and not by any action of the applicant. (2) The sign is not prohibited by BMC 20.52.050 and, except for location within a required setback, complies with all other requirements of this chapter. (3) The sign complies with the City's minimum sight distance at intersection requirements pursuant to BMC 20.52.070. (4) Location of the sign within a required setback is otherwise consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 20.52.200 REMOVAL OF SIGNS. The sign user, owner and/or owner of the property on which an abandoned, dangerous, defective, illegal, or prohibited sign is located shall remove or cause to be removed any such sign as required in this chapter. Failure to comply shall subject the sign user, owner and/or owner of the property on which the sign located to the remedies and penalties of BMC 20.40.200. Figure 20.52(a) Freestanding Signs: Zone-Specific Size and Design Requirements Commercial Zones Freestanding Sign Type Max.Height Max. Size'a'- General Commercial (GC) Monument only8'3 60 sq. ft. Neighborhood Business (NB) Monument only 6' 60 sq. ft. Freeway Corridor(FC) Any 35' 100-150 sq. ft. Industrial (I) Any 25' - Institutional (INST) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. 1 rx. Mt -Size Height All Centers (except the Puget Sound Monument only 8'3 60 sq. ft. Industrial Center-Bremerton) Puget Sound Industrial Center- Any 25' _ Bremerton District Center Core(DCC) 8' 60 sq. ft. Downtown Core(DC) Monument y 60 sq. ft. 60 sq. ft. Business Core(BC) 60 sq. ft. Employment Centcr(EC) 60 sq. ft. 1. Larger signs for large multiple occupant development are allowable per BMC 20.52.100(c). 2. Freestanding sign size for special purpose zones not listed in this table is subject to the requirements of BMC 20.52.130. 15 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs 3. Freestanding signs fronting Wheaton Way(from Riddell Road to Sheridan Road) and Kitsap Way may increase the maximum height to fifteen(15) feet,Tancl-max-imum -! - -- • „ I ! - ---•- • - departure from the requirements listed in Figure 20.52(a). 4. Pursuant to BMC 20.52.100(d) Co-op signage may increase the maximum signage provided a transfer of development rights for the non-fronting parcel is provided (non-frontingparcel does not get a freestanding sign as the transfer of development rights were for a larger sign on the fronting parcel). SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2016 ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of , 2016 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2016 EFFECTIVE the day of ,2016 ORDINANCE NO. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Sign Code\l 1-1-16 BMC 20.52.docx 16 Zoning Code Amendments—Signs Exhibit A FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: The proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code concern amending Chapter 20.52 Sign Standards and BMC 20.42 Definitions relating to sign provisions. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: The proposed amendment package includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.52 Sign Regulations and 20.42 Definitions as follows: • Revising Political Sign Regulations language to be compliant with the Supreme Court recent decision. This includes (1) removing a time limitation for Noncommerical speech signs (renamed but incudes free speech and political signage), though new code has been proposed to ensure maintenance of signs remain in good repair; and (2) removing sign code regulations that specifically allowed for larger signs for auto dealerships, increased the allowed signage size for all business within the Freeway Corridor zone. • Regulating new signs and technology, including signs placed on a trailer or vehicle, and added code that regulates illumination. • Increasing the timeframe for Readerboard messages from two to eight seconds before the message copy changes. • Reworked the Co-op signage provisions (a co-op sign is intended to permit businesses that do not have street frontages on major thoroughfares a reasonable opportunity to advertise). A co-op sign transfers the right to place a freestanding sign from the non-fronting parcel to the parcel with street frontage on two major thoroughfares (Kitsap and Wheaton Ways). The proposed amendments are to extend applicable parcels that could utilize a Co-op sign. The intent is to reduce visual clutter and reduces signage installations, additional code has been proposed to ensure removal of any existing free-standing sign if erecting a Co-op sign. • Proposing code that provides consistency in the Nonconforming Signs section between maintenance and repair of both off-premise and on-premise signage. 2. Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: June 21, 2016 and July 15, 2016 2.2 Washington State Department Of Commerce Notice: September 2, 2016 2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: September 6, 2016 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: September 10, 2016 2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 20, 2016. 3. Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 Planning Commission Workshops: June 21, 2016 and July 15, 2016 3.2 Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 20, 2016 Email received on September 15. 2016 from Priscilla Bailey; Public Testimony from Jeff Coughlin 1 Exhibit A 4. SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on September 6, 2016, to date no comments have been filed. The appeal period will end after Planning Commission's Public Hearing but prior to City Council process. 5. Consistency: Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. (1) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: LU1(A):Designate neighborhoods, communities, and centers throughout the City and encourage the implementation of design guidelines for new development and redevelopment that complement the designated purpose and scale. LU2(E):Promote exposure of City businesses and community events by signage that is proportion to the intensity of the Land Use designation, while recognizing the existing character of the neighborhood. Discourage off-premise signage throughout the City (including billboards), with exceptions for special events to be considered. LU1-Cen(A):Development regulations should encourage pedestrian oriented mixed-use design in Centers and address such issues as: (3)Adopting sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale, LU2(D):Provide development incentives and flexibility within regulations to encourage desirable design elements. ED1(A):Attract new employment opportunities throughout the city by utilizing incentives for redevelopment of underutilized sites. (2) It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis: The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, provided no appeals are filed for the environmental review, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter 20.52 Sign Regulations and a definition related to signs in 20.42, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d)text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. Res•- ,ully submitted by: _ .saa 1 _ilifi _ •ndrea L pe• r, Executive Secretary Stuart Nethery,hery, Planning Commission Vice-Chair 2 C) 0 o(Ni Z W v C LD 1 C) 2 (. ,„ LU /") 1 r L ; W -, 1 —r 1 - LVez�azwasz � r.".,+ [ ,,, :04...t.. ' ^" a _ , 11C Z Lu '-1CC 0rdCU 441........77,-;417-3-*C '!:-""."1""°"."" L. 4., %pit .., LU II 1 „Itic o o , I. a . lt.se" U1 L.,) ...t.. - ' ;..t." gia C .>, tr.* . :--. , ..," 701, COu. _-I LD V7.4 114,1 C , F. s)" c sr. oi m J _ ++ . n 3 + I ° th z •= - z O 4,1D L. a oN cu 4-0 � U > L a a o cu U —(A .- _ — a V) V) a) •a) E -4 ,V - L a -zs a.. t( ) cc° ...-.-CD -- > a5 647; < < r%.• ‘4-- (.) m o CU 0 CL a) -� Z a� Z a) LE o w > 0 u < cu> C c o a) s _c � s H L 2 _ co = ca vo. To E g QJ c Ciis ocE z , o > D 0 U O c) H Rdf;e ti 'S z E— O Lu v) c U J w �, �U _ LD0 a as P ° oc A '.- D '1' 0 a . . U „,,.. " ,,� w �— , ,7.,,,. . WI ,, � x LiJ D cc iw I y e•. T !i a c w > W cn co LIJ car Cs t0 o oc z w - wc NJ cn O U Z p Ii D oc 2 x w tn CU +-+ -0 CU O _c a ._ CU fa - a--+ +-I CU C6 {-' +� - CU Q 0 - ° _ v o u u c 'OA cu " L c c v ca 03 to ••— u O clf) oao O C >. C v 0 CU O al c O O ca D w c v O •7- > •,- VI) COc4- 10 0 v � 5 - W c�� LA til 01 N Q O 4A �(13 >, CD v C O Op � � m i ._ U c ro •O = -0 -0 -a � uu " 0 ) x J vi -0 a c C O CU O o CU •s -0 co O }' Cu" N � L - �' 4A cn .0 CU cv O 75 0 co to C 0 a-+ _a 4O N c 40., CZ 75 E 'm .e00 CU � t � � •- •biD C VI a aJ cn a O C.A co v) _C 06 % > cl D 0) v) O v, u i o J a 8 +��+ •c o N p O C Q O N O CU O • u Q cu 0O ate-+ � O N C C . +.+ t� v w ca �' ._ r0 • 0 t C •= O 7:5a) " 1 v O c c O .0 a1 = 1_ c6 > Cll O W Q :^ = E Q. = O c c -a 41 c cu f6 C O [L C E L' X C V — O CU ca — > to — W ECU iv '47# tID CU v j CU C can E a) i CU c 13 c +' 7 4p O X — cn O -0 O z CU 03 CU OO Q a1 ' < Cta. i G,! 'a > c "0 0 41 ro C Q) f) ma v ate, bO E 7 ,C c -C O N OD (13 4- QJ Q N O _C 3 � E 4-1 vi O Lm O Q N c ♦.., U _U co C co 0 i to GU Q) •C E a--+ W C •� z .Z.5 > �U a) o E x .111 ria ° O 4_ >. U U O a +J z c LE Q ° •� o vo — �v c� U W -i-; m Q) to (, Q) to - n NC CU O zcu c u W .0_ w c O •5 W . . (I) W >m O •nA CSC . . 110O N c a Cl.) ) CL 2• uC w iiim 0 03 > 73 0 0 "E — ++ v, ro U 0 U w • • lito," „ u ., t i F � + O +r cu 'a O +-, a u al C > c O L s > a) •—:� O C a E E O O C O O u a)3 C a) tin cu Q Q •— n:' N N O_ U G1 a) N C) U E ca co 46 •N i N of s- 2 0 c E E O O a C a, O o +a O O E C 0 s al C C CU TicQ CT3 l_ en n Qi •V7 a�ij O },ci) a) ._ v u co Vi �u +i OC • +-OO Q N . ca v ° vv = o ) a tO$ 5Cv too 4_) V) O C 0 F., -oco cu N c,y s= cn MO _QC) E t to • C O o cn _ N O L N O III H. •— _ a•-' Ca •— U a--+ C W b.O cu O N fa cu L_. }, c6 CD O a) U •- ta. Q Qa: co i t.A 0 U �' y r 0 (0 v CU W O O to (a a) 0' •N c'a a c CC) U v v O O F- > H u H Ou 0 m • • • — 73 1 \ `3 . /� v/ CU 4 (t ,F DO C CZ N CLCIN (13 N 3 RI t.n II Q 0.) v 1) C N (Da) (1) J C CT WO c_ O N N C N - o a) O E 0- 4-- CO I_ ca 0v CI) O o o v _C (13 4_ 03 Z O co c ._ CO v 0 CD CZ 4- D 03 U ›' i — 5 in w N a) a, 3 . CU N O W 3 -° — 0 a� 7 (A 0 m cu as N N C _ -4--•'— N 4A p fa i fao �A (1) (a Z 0 CO O O in N 4-1O cu U o iu w� co -- asN II Vii v' W p ° vcu ia + `• a) C a 'WII + 0 • = • C Ca S— V _ C lD Q 0 Q 11:3-0.). N 0 s- O o N U -0 U Cup o -a o Cl) o CO O Z Q p u °J s 03 x cuc 03 4_0 aA 03 N 7-.3. w Q ti O 0 (0 Z cU TA ttA v L ) CO 0 . (f) (j) (j) . a 4114%, Z HP i.e++ Z., Ce t ...,,,m" : .tt.4,1',..;(7, le # H '11' LILJ 4 4s, 1."'"nn . , .. • 1„,, uu # 1 ' I. CL < .ce ........ , Li—I ,._1 C D c., r , z ' •Esnipsialai ..,.. ,..., 0 III 0 ar7,... , III _ ,..... LLJ P.— ,.. . CO ..- _ — Z 0 9' ..... .... (1) ,., . . ... ..1 s + ,... H ovi D ., w ,. ....... , ., Z , ,, ,0, H '4 - Z f v , L11 b ‘,„ ... H lif, '''..: Z 0 ' w ,... tz *,:' 0 - - : u ' I , z ' 0 . ......1 . .41E uj .......... (./-) ..... 0 0 ; U.11 CM 0 o ; 1--- M 0 ntrik D - - 0 pk. k, 111•10°"16... CO l''' 1PL as" 0 Lu 2 co l'.4 ,....1 U...1 it I ' Lf-) 1 , j a • H y 7 z � � Q I U 41. 5t5 0 '` t6 U • - . . .. w th. 'RS I- F w .• z W,m tJ61[i{q,}1 miltll E t#01 :WOO Matt i riffilltii i' in1 mftpoo ti111111$ lit/11111111/11 ihdiii, 73 II0 . ..#1. atili oo �. Q, i `illi 'jiilil O M O 1:3in L_CU .O O p to 4-1 UP .0 Clj (/) C O (1) O C Z ° .0 c 1.O •w° c/-) N O ;\ C N (D ca 0 wvE w C C U CO r W , z O O QO V}-- >, CZ CO o Q) Q U U O O O U O . .Eo cntno NNa _ V COIOZ Nr-- Z o O ioc CC c6 a_ U (A D QJ O c > 0 aA O o T1)- O 2o IN co _ r D To Q, V giim L a ) 0 73 N O U CO CL ID o O o CU V) 2. cc0 Q m Kitsap or Wheaton Way Tu m It Da 0 2 U- LU t z CL o cn O O 1.111 U 0 zO LU L 4J '}') O ca p _cco Q L I E s a cu - i- p v) V 0 4�-J Q O cm 'v — > L. Z i -o Cu 0 CUD a w t/) U a) OD " y I E0 a) p m CO a U C " bp ,aO v .is J p Q 4--- •c 7Uz cm 4Z3 cu U — cu D •- U - � 'U 0 c3 c co c = Ln U 'Q o U z >- a) c 0 U I— U 4- U U Q 44 CITY OF BREMERTON City Council Meeting November 16, 2016 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item 6B Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for proposed FY-2017 City of Bremerton Budget Presenter — Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director (Public Comment Only...No Action...) ' BREMERTON City Council Meeting November 16, 2016 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item 6C Public Hearing on proposed FY-2017 City of Bremerton Budget Presenter — Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director (Public Comment Only...No Action...) 4c2 Cpc -2 F ' ;r EIV ERTEN BREMERA -41ts _ • _ 2017 Proposed Budget Public Hearing on Revenue Sources November 16, 2016 2017 Proposed Budget • Proposed Budget Filed with City Clerk and Noticed as Available for Review Beginning October 28th • City Budget Review Workshops — November 3rd- Budget Overview & Governmental Funds — November7th—Overview Internal Service& Enterprise Funds — November 10th-Council Questions and Deliberations • Proposed Budget with Council revisions is posted on the City's website at www.Bremertonwa.gov • Tonight's Public Hearing addresses Revenue Sources included in the 2017 Budget. 1 Revenue Considerations SfY of SREMERTON, • Includes general and EMS property tax increase of 1% • City Utility Tax rates remain unchanged • A portion of Utility Tax on City owned utilities dedicated to the Transportation Capital Fund. • Commercial Parking Tax rate unchanged • B&O tax exemption increased by $20,000 to $160,000 • Miscellaneous rates and fees updated to reflect cost of providing service • Utility rates and fees updated • Includes interfund transfers between funds where appropriate (e.g. Abatement, REET, debt service, etc.) City-Wide Proposed Revenue B Budget Comparison R _ Amended Proposed 2016 2017 Percent Category Budget Budget Difference Change Taxes $33,067,855 $35,338,640 $2,270,785 6.87% Licenses&Permits 1,487,600 1,500,385 12,785 0.86% Intergovernmental 8,590,641 5,078,259 -3,512,382 -40.89% Charges for Services 48,084,765 45,191,511 -2,893,254 -6.02% Fines&Forfeits 1,263,300 1,557,800 294,500 23.31% Other Revenue 7,288,727 6,379,378 -909,349 -12.48% Debt Proceeds 10,439,824 974,384 -9,465,440 -90.67% Transfers 5,572,021 4,700,683 -871,338 -15.64% $115,794,733 $100,721,040 $-15,073,693 -13.02% 2 General Fund Revenue B Comparison Amended Proposed 2016 2017 Percent Category Budget Budget Difference Change Taxes $28,986,308 $30,089,730 $1,103,422 3.81% Licenses&Permits 1,202,600 1,207,185 4,585 0.38% Intergovernmental 1,492,571 1,127,430 -365,141 -24.46% Charges for Services 5,051,176 5,213,444 162,368 3.21% Fines&Forfeits 971,500 1,220,800 249,300 25.66% Other Revenue 255,781 240,470 -15,311 -5.99% Transfers 60,000 100,000 40,000 66.67% $38,019,936 $39,199,059 $1,179,1123 3.10% General Fund Revenue Sources B • 77%of General Fund resources are from taxes General Fund which are impacted by changes in the economy. Proposed 2017 Budget • Sales Tax is the largest source of revenue. Taxes Projected to increase in 2017 it is 23%of total Property $ 8,440,700 revenue and 30%of total taxes. Sales&Use 9,005,000 • Property taxes are the second largest source of B&0 2,900,000 revenue.Budgeted at a 1%increase,property Utility Tax-private 4,259,500 taxes account for 22%of total revenue or 28%of Utility Tax-city 5,306,280 total taxes. Other 178,250 • Business and Occupation Tax is projected to Total Taxes 30,089,730 increase 7.77%in 2017 reflecting improvements Licenses&Permits 1,207,185 in the economy. Intergovernmental 1,127,430 • Budget anticipates that the utility tax on the City's Charges for Services 5,213,444 Stormwater utility will be split between the Fines&Forfeits 1,220,800 General Fund 60%and the Transportation Capital Other Revenue 240,470 Fund 40%. Transfers 100,000 Total Revenue $ 39,199,059 3 Property Tax Overview • Limited by statute to 1% increase or inflation(IPD),plus new construction and annexations,unless otherwise approved by voters. For 2017 inflation is 0.953%. • EMS levy is also limited by statute to $0.50 per$1,000 cap. • Voter approved Special Bond Levies are not restricted. • Property Tax Revenue includes$64,847 for new construction. • To levy the full 1% increase,Council must declare a substantial need by a vote of a majority of the Council,plus one. Passage of the resolution would preserve$3,295 in general property tax levy authority in perpetuity. • Council must formally establish the annual property tax levy amount by Ordinance and communicate such levy to the County Assessor no later than November 30th of the year prior to collection. • Property Tax Levy 1'J • All figures are estimates based on preliminary numbers from the County (includes the full 1%increased allowed by law) — Estimated Assessed Value - $2,748,207,581 Lek 2017 Rate per 2016 Rate per SI,000. V S1.000.W General Fund General $7,160,000 $ 2.60 $ 2.83 Emergency Medical Service(EMS) 1,226,610 0.45 0.49 Bond Debt Service Funds 2010 UTGO 815,000 0.30 0.34 2015 UTGO 500,000 0.18 0.23 4 General Rates & Fees B Fees and penalties charged to users of a service or those in violation of laws or regulations. • Updated fees and penalties to reflect changes in cost to provide the service — Rate Table C—Community Development — Rate Table F—Parks and Recreation Department — Rate Table G—Public Works and Utilities • New Tables • Rate Table I—Gold Mountain Golf Course • Rate Table J—Kitsap Conference Center • Rate Table K-Telecommunications Utility Rates for 2017 Average Residential Bi-monthh Percentage Rate IL tilits Increase Increase Water $2.37 4.75% Sewer $0.00 0.00% Stormwater $4.39 19.00% • Rates support expenditures for Operations and Maintenance,Capital Programs and Debt Service • Rates presented are less than those proposed in the Mayor's budget as a result of changes made to the Utility CIP by the Council. • 2013-2017 total cumulative increases are below those anticipated in the rate study for the same period. 5 Utility Rate Comparison `BRE' ERIO•H Bi-monthly Bill 244 28 C23c.x2 22 iii) rIrTty { 2017 Current 2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 Poufsbo Bainbridge Gfg Port Bremerton Kitsap Co. Bremerton Island Harbor Orchard PI'D Other Utility Rates & Fees • Miscellaneous Rates and Fees ➢ Updated to reflect CPI change from prior year. • General Facility Fees ➢ 2017 Fee increases were previously adopted on November 18, 2015 by Ordinance No. 5288. 6 Next Steps 1"J BREMER • Open public hearing • Based on public comments, Council will consider adoption of the following tonight: — Resolution No. 3279 making a Declaration of Substantial Need for purposes of setting the Limit Factor for the General Property Tax Levy and EMS Levy for 2017 — Ordinance No. 5313 levying Property Taxes for collection in 2017 — Resolution No.320 re-establishing and amending City Rates and Fees for 2017 — Ordinance No. 5314 relating to Assessments,Rates, Fees and charges for Water,Wastewater and Stormwater services Next Steps • Council will consider adoption of the FY 2017 City of Bremerton Budget following a second Public Hearing on December 7, 2016. 7 / 4 C.) Received by Bremerton City Council Office Date 11//6`lk November 15, 2016 To: City Council,City of Bremerton RE: New Health Care Plan The Mayor, based on advice from our Human Resource Department, has decided to no longer provide our current Cypress Medical Plan,which is a Self-Funded Insurance paid by the City. This change is mainly affecting Management& Professionals,and the Teamsters Union. In case you aren't aware,the plan has some drastic changes which adversely affect the employees, which they don't seem to care about. Under our current Cypress plan the annual deductible amount is$100 employee/$300 family and the Co-Insurance is$200 employee/$800 family. Under the new Regence 250 plan the amount has changed drastically.The deductible is now$250 employee/$750 family and the Co-Insurance is$3000 employee/$6000 family.The other change is the amount of Co-pays for prescriptions. During negotiations the City was asked if there was a possibility for the City to provide and pay for an HRA or HSA plan which is a common practice for employers to provide when you have high deductibles and high Co-Insurance limits,since having the higher limits reduces the amount of premiums paid. When asked about this option,they provided two answers,first being the City doesn't have the funds and second it was because of the impending Cadillac Tax through the Affordable Care Act. I believe since the Cadillac Tax doesn't take effect until possibly 2020, if it isn't repealed altogether under the new Administration,that shouldn't have been an issue. As it turns out, under the new Fire Contract,which was approved by Council in October,the City has found money to provide an Employer paid HRA fund for the Firefighter Union.They have agreed to pay an annual amount of$2700 employee/$4700 family. The City also pays 90%of dependent premiums for its Firefighters, Police and Police Management, whereas they only pay 80%of dependent coverage for Teamsters and Management& Professionals. It really would've been nice if the City could've provided us an HRA or HSA,in order to ease us into the change in our Out-of-pocket expenses,at least until that Cadillac Tax took effect. But for them to just say it's not it is not an option. They have created a hardship for its employees. HR did hire an additional staff person back in 2014 to help with the extra work they anticipated with having a City paid Health plan. Perhaps they could use the money from the Salary/Benefits of that employee to provide the rest of the employees an HRA or HSA,assuming they would eliminate that position. Thank you for your time. Li- ., � 4\el7 � (- 6 G 2 oC� u6 Al Pam( I ` tAeo OCA PREM DIA I t7v'. BLUE CROSS Highlights of your Health Care Coverage Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust Group Number:4000190 Effective Date: 01/01/2016 Any deductibles,copays,and coinsurance percentages shown are amounts for which you're responsible. Medical Benefits apply after the calendar-year deductible is met unless otherwise noted,or if the cost share is a copay. MEDICAL PLAN MEDICAL PLAN F$100 10%$1,100$10 MEDICAL COST SHARE OPTIONS Fgml(\+ Individual Deductible PCY(Family embedded deductible 2X Individual) $100 PCY ZOO- Shared with In-Network Coinsurance(Member's percentage of costs after deductible based 10% 50% on allowable charges) Individual-Out-ct.Pocket Maximum PCY,includes deductible, ` '` Not Applicable nsurance,copay and.pharmacy if applicable(Family embedded) $1,100 PCY ZZ0v OOP max 2X Individual ~Office Visit Cost Share $10 Copay,applies to the Out of Pocket Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Maximum PREVENTIVE CARE OPTIONS AND HEALTH EDUCATION Preventive Office Visit(Unlimited) Covered In Full Not Covered Immunizations(Unlimited) Covered In Full Not Covered Health Education(HE)(Unlimited) Covered In Full Not Covered Nicotine Dependency Programs(ND)(Unlimited) Covered In Full Not Covered Diabetes Health Education(DE)(Unlimited) Covered In Full Not Covered PROFESSIONAL CARE Professional Office Visit Including Urgent Care $10 Copay,applies to the Out of Pocket Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Maximum Inpatient Professional Services In Network Deductible,then 10% Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Contraceptive Management Services(Unlimited) Covered In Full Out of Network Deductible,then 50% DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE OPTIONS Preventive Professional Diagnostic Imaging and Laboratory Covered In Full Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Services-Including Mammogram and PAP/PSA Other Professional Diagnostic Imaging Covered In Full Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Other Professional Diagnostic Laboratory/Pathology Covered In Full Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Diagnostic Mammography Covered In Full Out of Network Deductible,then 50% FACILITY CARE OPTIONS Inpatient Facility In Network Deductible,then 10% Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Outpatient Surgery Facility In Network Deductible,then 10% Out of Network Deductible,then 50% Hospice Inpatient Facility(Unlimited;within the 6 month lifetime In Network Deductible,then 10% Out of Network Deductible,then 50°/a maximum) EMERGENCY CARE AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Emergency Care(If applicable,waive copay if admitted to inpatient $100 Copay applies to the Out of $100 Copay applies to the Out of Pocket Maximum,then In Network Pocket Maximum,then In Network facility) Deductible,10% Deductible, 10% Emergency Room Physician In Network Deductible,then 10% In Network Deductible,then 10% Ambulance Transportation(Unlimited) In Network Deductible,then 10% In Network Deductible,then 10% Air Ambulance(Unlimited) In Network Deductible,then 10% In Network Deductible,then 10% 1-494ML0 Rev#1 O 11/612015 09:43 AM Page 14 of 50 0466623-02 An Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association I. PREM ERA I ED BLUE CROSS Highlights of your Health Care Coverage Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust Group Number:4000190 Tier 1 =Generic Pharmacy Benefits Tier 2=Preferred Brand Name Tier 3=Non Preferred Brand Name Below is a brief overview of what you can expect to pay for a prescription drug,depending on which"tier"category it falls under in the Preferred Drug List for your plan when using an In-Network Pharmacy.For more information on your pharmacy benefits,including Out-of-Network benefits,see your benefit booklet.To find out what tier applies to a specific medication,see out Preferred Drug List in your pharmacy packet or at www.premera.com. Any deductibles,copays,and coinsurance percentages shown are amounts for which you're responsible. Effective Date: 01/01/2016 PHARMACY PLAN PHARMACY PLAN F$51$251$50 2X MAIL Cost Share Category Tierl/Tier2/Tier3 PRESCRIPTION DRUGS Retail Cost Shares $5/$25/$50 Mail Cost Shares $10/$50/$100 Day Supply Retail:30 Days;Mail:90 Days;Specialty:30 Days Individual Deductible PCY $0 Out of Network(Non-participating retail pharmacies) Cost Share,then 40%(to allowable) Out of Pocket Maximum Applies to the medical out of pocket maximum Annual Benefit Maximum Unlimited Drug List Preferred 83 PCY=Per Calendar Year.Balance billing may apply if a provider is not contracted with Premera Blue Cross.Members are responsible for amounts in excess of the allowable charge. This is not a complete explanation of covered services,exclusions,limitations,reductions or the terms under which the program may be continued in force. This benefit highlight is not a contract. For full coverage provisions,including a description of waiting periods,limitations and exclusions please contact Customer Service. 1-494ML0 Rev#1 Q 11/6/2015 09:43 AM Page 40 of 50 0466623-02 An Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association AGENDA BILL D CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3279 to make a Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Declaration of Substantial Need for purposes COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 of Setting the Limit Factor for the General Department: Financial Services Property Tax Levy and EMS Levy for 2017 Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: (360) 473-5296 SUMMARY: RCW 84.55.005 allows for a taxing district with a population of 10,000 or greater to levy taxes in an amount that is the lesser of 100 percent plus inflation or 101 percent. Currently the taxes levied in the City of Bremerton in 2016 for collection in 2017 will increase by 0.953% except for the amounts resulting from new construction and improvements to property, and any increase in the value of state-assessed utility property. RCW 84.55.0101 provides for use of a limit factor of 101 percent or less with a finding of substantial need by a majority plus one vote of council members. The City general fund is reliant on the use of fund balance to supplement ongoing revenues to meet annual operating expenditures. The additional property tax authority will provide funds to be used for public safety, street maintenance and preservation of the City's other basic core services. Failure to declare a substantial need will result in a permanent loss of taxing authority. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 3279 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The estimated net increase in the 2017 general property tax levy, if the resolution is approved, is $3,295. The estimated net increase in the 2017 EMS levy is $566. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 3279 to make a Declaration of Substantial Need for purposes of Setting the Limit Factor for the General Property Tax Levy and EMS Levy for 2017. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 RESOLUTION NO. 3279 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, making a declaration of substantial need for purposes of the setting the limit factor for the property tax levy for 2017. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.010 provides that a taxing jurisdiction may levy taxes in an amount no more than the limit factor multiplied by the highest levy of the most recent three years plus additional amounts resulting from new construction and improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, and any increase in the value of state-assessed utility property; and WHEREAS, under RCW 84.55.005(2)(c),the limit factor for a taxing jurisdiction with a population of 10,000 or over is the lesser of 101 percent or 100 percent plus inflation; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.005(1) defines "inflation" as the percentage change in the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published for the most recent 12-month period by the bureau of Economic Analysis of the federal Department of Commerce in September of the year before the taxes are payable; and WHEREAS, "inflation" for July 2016 is 0.953 percent. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.0101 provides for use of a limit factor of 101 percent or less with a finding of substantial need by a majority plus one vote of council members; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35.33 RCW,the Mayor is required to provide the City Council with current information on estimates of revenues from all sources,together with estimates submitted by the Financial Services Director, for consideration of the City's total anticipated financial requirements for the ensuing fiscal year, and the City Council is required to determine and fix by ordinance the amount to be levied by ad valorem taxes; and WHEREAS, the City general fund revenues are projected to be insufficient to meet 2017 budgeted expenditures and maintain adequate operating reserves; and WHEREAS,these are funds that would be used for public safety including EMS services, street maintenance, economic development, and preservation of the City's basic, core services; and 1 2017 Property Tax Levy 1 WHEREAS,the City Council, after duly considering relevant evidence and factors,has determined that, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City, there is a substantial need to set the levy limit increase at 101 percent ;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON,WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Based on these recitals and after thoroughly reviewing the information relating to revenues and expenses for 2017, and to ensure adequate funding in future years,the City Council finds and determines that, pursuant to and for purposes of Chapter 84.55 RCW, there is a substantial need to set the levy limit factor at 101 percent for both the regular property tax levy and EMS property tax levy for 2017. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by a super majority of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2016. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Finance\2017 Property Tax Levy.doc 2 2017 Property Tax Levy AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 6E CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5313 levying Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Property Taxes for Collection in 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 360-473-5296 SUMMARY: Cities over 10,000 in population are allowed to raise their annual property tax collection by either 1% or the amount of the July Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), whichever is lower. This year, the IPD was .953%. As presented during the public hearing earlier this evening, the City is requesting the full 1% increase to our general property tax levy over the prior year's collection, as allowed by law. This increase, along with the amounts anticipated for new construction, has been included in the 2017 Proposed Budget. In addition, we are also requesting the full 1% increase to the EMS levy. The EMS amount anticipated in the 2017 Proposed Budget includes this amount. RCW 84.52.020 requires all taxing districts to "certify to the county legislative authority, for the purpose of levying district taxes...the amounts to be raised" by property taxes. RCW 84.55.120 requires that the certification includes the enabling tax ordinance setting the property tax rate. These documents must be submitted to the county by November 30, 2016. ATTACHMENTS: 9 Ordinance No. 5313 establishing the amount to be collected in 2017 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed 2017 budget anticipates passage of this ordinance. Budgeted revenue matches the levy amounts as the total collections in recent years closely approximate the actual amount collected. In the General Fund revenue from the general property tax levy is $7,205,000 and the EMS levy is $1,235,700. Revenue from voter approved levies are budgeted in Debt Service funds and include $815,000 for the 2010 Public Safety bond and $500,000 for the 2015 Public Safety bond. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business i Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5313 establishing the amount to be collected in 2017 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 • ORDINANCE NO. 5313 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in 2017 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. WHEREAS, the City Council attests that the population of the City of Bremerton for 2017 is 40,500; and WHEREAS, the City Council has properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 16, 2016, to consider the City's revenue sources for the City's General Fund budget; and WHEREAS, the City's actual levy amount from the previous year, including any refunds and abatements levied was $7,085,163; and WHEREAS, the City's actual.EMS levy amount from the previous year, including any refunds and abatements levied was $1,215,901; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing and duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, has determined that the City of Bremerton requires a regular levy and EMS levy in the maximum amounts allowable, which is a 1.0% increase to the highest lawful levy allowed by law. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2017 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy from the previous year shall be $0 which is an effective percent increase of 0.00% from the previous year levy. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any • annexations that have occurred and abatements and refunds made. SECTION 2. That an EMS levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2017 tax year. The.dollar amount-of the increase over the actual levy from the previous year shall be $0 which is an effective percent increase of 0.00% from the previous year levy. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and abatements and refunds made. This levy is further subject to the maximum allowable levy rate of$0.50 per$1,000 of assessed valuation. 1 2017 PropertyTax • SECTION 3. . That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2010 Public Safety UTGO Refunding Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to levy property taxes to_be collected in 2017 at a rate sufficient to provide $815,000 needed to meet debt service obligations in 2017. SECTION 4. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2015 Public Safety UTGO Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to levy property taxes to be collected in 2017 at a rate sufficient to provide $500,000 needed to meet debt service obligations in 2017. SECTION 5. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2016 ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of , 2016 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk • ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2016 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2016 ORDINANCE NO. 2 2017 PropertyTax AGENDA BILL 7A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3280 Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 re-establishing and amending City Rates COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 and Fees for 2017 Department: All Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: (360) 473-5296 SUMMARY: Each year, as part of the budget process, the various City departments review their charges, rates and fees for services and make recommendations on any changes needed. The attached includes recommended changes to fees charged by the various departments. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution No. 3280 2) Exhibit A FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Impacts to revenue are dependent on the demand for services. The 2017 proposed budget does anticipate the approval of the resolution and related rate tables. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: 0 Consent Agenda o General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 3280 re-establishing and amending City Rates & Fees for 2017. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 RESOLUTION NO. 3280 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, reestablishing and amending rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Financial Services, Municipal Court, Department of Community Development, Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Department of Public Works and Utilities and Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) and establishing new rate tables for Gold Mountain Golf Complex, Kitsap Conference Center, and Telecommunications. WHEREAS,the City Council, by this resolution, desires to reestablish and amend the rates and fees established in prior Resolution No. 3255; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Rate Tables Established and Amended. Rates and fees for services are established as follows: 1) Rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Financial Services, Municipal Court, Department of Community Development, Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Department of Public Works and Utilities and Bremerton Kitsap Access Television(BKAT), as established by Resolution No. 3255, are hereby reestablished and amended herein by this Resolution in the rate tables A through H as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and 2) Rates and fees for services relating to the Gold Mountain Golf Complex, Kitsap Conference Center, and Telecommunications, are hereby established by this Resolution in the new rates tables I through K as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Resolution Repealed. Resolution No. 3255 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Effective Date of Sections 1 and 2. The reestablishment and amendment of rate tables as set forth in Section 1 above and the repeal of Resolution No. 3255 as set forth in Section 2 above shall be effective January 1, 2017. SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force on January 1, 2017. 1 2017 Rates and Fees • PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2016. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORN, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Finance\2017 Rates and Fees Tables\2017 Resolution Establishing Rate Tables Final.doc • • 2 . • 2017 Rates and Fees FINANCIAL SERVICES — RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees A. FINANCIAL SERVICES 1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES RATE BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation Non-Profit $25/60 days Professional Fundraiser $675/60 days BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $265/yr or$70/30 days BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $700/yr Dancers $100/yr BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $150/veh/yr BMC 5.16 Peddlers $75/yr or$25/30days BMC 5.36 Special Events $100.00/event BMC 5.08 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $100/yr Site Relocation$50.00 BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $400/30 days 2. BUSINESS LICENSE FEE BATE BMC 5.02 $75/yr 3. PARKING On-Street Locations Not to Exceed $20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Off-Street Location Not to Exceed$20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Parking Garage Not to Exceed$200/mo 4. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES RATE (Including scanning to Electronic Format) Per Page- 8'/2 x 11, 81/2 x 14 and 11 x 17 paper size(No fee for first 50 $0.15/pg pages) Video Reproduction Actual Costs including personnel time CD/DVD $2.00 Resolution No. 3a80 FINANCIAL SERVICES — RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees •4. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES BATE (Including,scanning to Electronic Format) USB 2 GB $5.00 Certification $5.00 Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos,Drawings, and Maps (Black and $8/pg White) Color GIS Plotted Maps $5/sq. ft. Other Documents: Medical Records Fees shall be pursuant to RCW • 70.02.010(12) Budget (Hard Copy) $50 (Electronic Version) $10 Annual Report (Hard Copy) $25 ' (Electronic Version) $10 In addition to the above fees,each department may establish fees for records that do not fall into one of the above categories. Each department and the City Clerk shall have the department's fee schedule available for inspection upon request. 5. CHECK HANDLING FEE $40 6. ANIMAL CONTROL FEES Licenses for Dogs and Cats For Each Cat Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering) Annual $7.50 Lifetime • $25.00 For Each Dog Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering) Annual $12.50 Lifetime $45.00 For Each Cat Not Spayed or Neutered $37.50 For Each Dog Not Spayed or Neutered $37.50 Senior Citizen Permanent Dog/Cat $12.50 Replacement Tag $ 1.00 Additional License Fee (for late renewal) $10.00 License for Chickens For up to five (5) chickens(annually) $12.50 Senior permanent for up to five (5) chickens $12.50 • Resolution No. 32150 • FINANCIAL SERVICES — RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees Impound and Redemption Fees - Domestic Animals Impound $45 Vaccination 45 Boarding (per day) 20 Medical care Case dependent Microchip $30 Impound and Redemption Fees - Livestock Impound $60 Boarding (per day) $40 Medical care Case dependent Special Transportation fee $120 • Resolution No. 3.9-50 MUNICIPAL COURT—RATE TABLE B All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees B. Municipal Court RATE 1. HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL $65 2. PARKING PENALTIES Overtime or Reparking 1 st Violation in 30 Days $25 2"d Violation in 30 Days $50 3rd Violation in 30 Days $100 Non-Payment in Collection Devices $25 Loading Zones $25 No Parking $45 Wrong Way $45 Parked on Sidewalk $45 Fire Hydrant • $45 12" From Curb $25 Physically Disabled (Public and Private) $450 Counterfeiting or User of Counterfeit Permits, $500 Tokens or Script Unauthorized Use of Permits $250 Replacement of parking permit $10 Blocked Driveway $45 Expired Tabs $45 30 Foot to Stop Sign $45. Double Parked $45 No Stopping/No Standing $45 Failure to Respond—Additional Penalty $25 1 Resolution No. 3a 60 All parking infractions set forth in Chapter 10.10 BMC not $30 identified above 3. PARKING FEES Residential Parking Permits—Each additional permit issued in $100 excess of two permits per dwelling unit Petition for Creation of Residential Restricted Parking Zone $100 Administrative Immobilization Fee(i.e. boot) $100 4. TRAFFIC PENALTIES Inattention to Driving $136 Automated Traffic Safety Camera Violations $136 2 Resolution No. 3a,90- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees C. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RATE 1. SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary Short $1000+$150 per lot Preliminary Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $2500+ $150/lot(1-100 lots) $100/lot(101-200 lots) $75/lot(201 +lots) Final Short $630 + $40/lot Final Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $945 +40/lot Minor Amendment $630 (no lot fee) Extension $630 (no lot fee) 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Substantial Development Permit $1,300 Conditional Use Permit—Type II $850 Conditional Use Permit—Type III $1750 Shoreline Variance $1750 Permit Revision $325 Shoreline Exemption $100 3. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) Checklist - $320 Environmental Impact Statement Review/Adoption $650+additional cost of expertise 4. APPEAL(to Hearing Examiner) $350 5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE $100 6. ABATEMENTS Dangerous Building $900+Direct Service and Supply Cost Garbage&Weed $640 +Direct Service and Supply Cost 7. ABANDONED PROPERTY FINES &PENALTIES Failure to Register $1,000 + $100 per day Failure to Inspect, Maintain, and/or Secure $1,000+ $100 per day Resolution No. 32-80 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees RATE 8. RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION FINES &PENALTIES Failure to Register and File a Declaration of Compliance as Required $1,000 +$100 per day Failure to Obtain a Certificate of Inspection When Required $1,000+$100 per day 9. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY $56.0073.00 10. BUILDING PERMIT FEES* Refer to Exhibit 1 11. PLAN REVIEW FEE 65%of the building permit fee as set forth in Exhibit 1 12. ESTABLISHED"BASIC"PLAN REVIEW Pursuant to DCD policy 50% of Plan Review Fee 13. BUILDING PERMIT FEE FOR REROOF* $100 14. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES* Residential Refer to Exhibit 2 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1 15. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES* • Residential Refer to Exhibit 3 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1 16. GRADING PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEES* Refer to Exhibit 4 17. ZONING ORDINANCE Ordinance Amendments Text $740 Rezone(Map Amendment) $740 Variance Administrative $325 Public Hearing/Single Family $500 Public Hearing/Other $1750 Development Agreements $1600 Resolution No. 34$0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees RATE Conditional Use Permit Single Family Residential Type II $350 Single Family Residential Type III $500 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type II $850 • Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type III $1750 Non-Conforming Use Determination $275 Director's Code Interpretation $175 18. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Text or Map Amendment $1500 Combined Text and Map Amendment $2500 19. SITE PLAN REVIEW • Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type II $5001,000 20. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT* $5001,000 (Fee waived if concurrent with Site Plan Review) 21. MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION Application $1500 22. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Conceptual Design Conference $500 Design Response Conference $500 23. CRITICAL AREA REVIEW Hourly Rate • (Dangerous trees,tree removal in sloped area, etc.) 24. FORESTRY Hourly Rate Conversion Harvest Option Plan 25. MISCELLANEOUS FEES Hourly Rate $56,0873.00 Stop Work Fee 100% of permit fee Technology Surcharge on Permits 5%of Permit Fee (Permit Surcharge Levied on Fees Noted with *) Resolution No. 3a60 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 1 BUILDING AND OTHER PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION' FEE $1.00 TO $500.00 $26,0035.00 $501.00 TO $2,000.00 $26.0035.00 for the first$500.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof,to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $40,000 $69714080.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $11.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to and including$40,000 $40,001.00 to $100,000.00 $187.00498.00 for the first$40,000; plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $4702-74)01 038.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to and including$500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,827.00 3,838.00for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to and including$1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 to 5,000,000.00 $6,327.006,338.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional$1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to include$5,000,000.00 $5,000,001.00 and over $18,327.0018,338.00 for the first $5,000,000.00; plus$1.00 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees charge—two hours) 2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees chapter shall be as follows(per inspection): 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees (minimum charge—one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees revisions to plans (minimum charge—one-half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and Actual Costs' inspections, or both 6. Manufactured Home Setup Fee Foundation Bid Price valuation used in Exhibit 1 7. Moved Building Permit Fee(not including other required $100.00 permits) 8. Demolition permit Fee: 3 cents per square foot, with a $100.00 minimum charge of 9. Energy Code Plan Review Surcharge for New Single $50.00 Family Residences • Valuation includes fair market value of labor and materials. 2 Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. Resolution No. 3o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 2 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters Fee 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $25.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been canceled or finaled $7.25 Unit Fee Schedule(Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee) 1. Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance,up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW) $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor- mounted unit heater $14.80 2. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit $7.25 3. Repairs or Additions • For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance,refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $13.70 4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower(10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h(29.3. kW) $14.70 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower (10.6 kW)to and including 15 horsepower(52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW)to and including 500,000 Btu/h(146.6 kW) $27.15 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower(52.7 kW)to and including 30 horsepower(105.5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h(146.6 kW)to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h(293.1 kW) $37.20 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 kW)to and including 50 horsepower(176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h(293.1 kW)to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h(512.9 kW) $55.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower(176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h(512.9 kW) $92.65 Resolution No. 380 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees 5. Air Handlers For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute(cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does.not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code $10.65 For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm(4719 :s) $18.10 6. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $10.65 7. Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.25 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit $10.65 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $10.65 • 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator $14.50 9. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table $10.65 For each gas piping system $10.00 Other Inspections and Fees Inspections outside of normal business hours, per hour(minimum charge—two hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this chapter shall be as follows (per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour(minimum charge—one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed (minimum charge—one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Resolution No. 3),50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 3 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1. For issuing each permit $25.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $10.00 Unit Fee Schedule(in addition to items 1 and 2 above) 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap(including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefore) $7.00 2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $15.00 3. Rainwater systems-per drain(inside building) $7.00 4. For each cesspool(where permitted) • $25.00 5. For each private sewage disposal system $40.00 6. For each water heater and/or vent $7.00 7. For each gas piping system $10.00 8. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $7.00 9. For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment, each $7.00 10. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $7.00 11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices therefore $7.00 12. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 12: lto5 $5.00 Over 5, each $1.00 13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inch(51 mm) diameter and smaller $7.00 Over 2 inch(51 mm) diameter $15.00 14. For each graywater system $40.00 15. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system $30.00'• 16. For each annual cross-connection testing of a reclaimed water system(excluding initial test) $30.00' 17. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a specific gas $50.00 18. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s) $5.00 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 2. Re-inspection fee Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions Hourly rate per Rate Table C- to approved plans(minimum charge-one-half hour) Miscellaneous Fees Resolution No. 3280 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 4 GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards(38.2 m3) or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $23.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards(77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards(765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $49.25 10,001 100,000 cubic yards(7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3),plus $24.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,456 m3 to 152,911 m3) $269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455 m3),plus $13.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof 200,001 cubic yards(152,912 m3) or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152,911 m3),plus $7.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge-one-half Hourly rate per Rate Table C- hour) Miscellaneous Fees GRADING PERMIT FEES' • 50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less $23.50 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $37.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00 for the first 100 cubic yards(76.5 m3) plus $17.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) or fraction thereof 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards(765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $194.50 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3), plus $14.50 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction thereof 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards(7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $325.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3), plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3)or fraction thereof 100,001 cubic yards(76,456 m3) or more $919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards(76,455 m3), plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge-two hours) Hourly rate per Rate Table C-Miscellaneous Fees Resolution No. 3aeo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees 2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of . this chapter shall be as follows(per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated(minimum charge—one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees 'The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. • • • • • • • • • • • Resolution No. 3a 8o POLICE DEPARTMENT—RATE TABLE D All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT RATE 1. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTS $10.00 2. FINGERPRINTS— 1st Card $10.00 Each Additional Card $10.00 3. CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK $10.00 .4. PHOTO PRINTS Actual Cost of 5. ALARM COMPLIANCE FEE 1st False Alarm in any 1 Quarter $60.00 2nd False Alarm in the same Quarter $80.00 3rd False Alarm in the same Quarter $160.00 or Subsequent Alarms in a Calendar Quarter 6. SERVICE FEE FOR ANTI-HARASSMENT ORDER $50.00 7. SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS Arrest Warrant $15.00 plus mileage Subpoena $6.00 plus mileage Preparation of return of service $5.00 Mileage (for each mile actually and necessarily traveled by a current business member of the Police Department in going to or returning from mileage rate any place of service, or attempted service) allowed by the Internal Revenue Service 8. TAXICABS Taxicab Business Certificate $30.00/yr Taxicab Driver's Certificate $30.00/yr Vehicle Decal $1 0.00/veh/yr • Resolution No. 3a0D FIRE DEPARTMENT—RATE TABLE,E All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees • E. FIRE DEPARTMENT RATE 1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands/Displays $100/stand/yr BMC 18.06 Ambulance Services Ambulance Inspections $60/veh 2. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE ALS Residents $700 ALS—2 $750 ALS Non-Residents $750 BLS Residents $500 BLS Non-Residents. $550 Mileage $14.00/mile 3. EMS SERVICE CALL TO ASSISTED LIVING,LONG $100 After first response per TERM CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES quarter 4. RE-INSPECTION FEE $56.00 5. HAZARD MATERIALS RESPONSE Rice Hull Ash Actual Cost per Bag Absorbent Pads Actual Cost per Bag 6. STAND-BY-TIME Per crew of 3 $98/hour Fire Engine—Crew of 4 $115/hour 7. ACTIVE FIREFIGHTING- Fire Engine Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate* Aerial Ladder Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate* 8. SPRINKLER/FIRE ALARM PLANS IFC Rates** 9. FIRE WATCH $50.00/hour 10. AFTER HOURS INSPECTION Actual Cost 11. RUSH PLAN REVIEW Actual Cost 12. OPERATIONAL PERMIT $100.00 13. OPERATIONAL PERMIT INSPECTIONS Actual Cost *Washington Fire Chiefs Association Wage&Equipment Rates for the Washington State Fire Service **International Fire Code • Resolution No. 3aso PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees F. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT NON-RESIDENT FEE -BASE FEE PLUS 25% 1. FACILITY USE RENTAL RATES • Facility use policies apply. • Appropriate taxes are included in rates unless otherwise noted. • Regular Groups(10 or more meetings a year,reserved in advance)may receive a 20%discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees. • Non-Profit Groups may receive a discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees with proof of Non-Profit status. Discount will be determined at time of rental request. (a) SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER—ROOM RENTAL RATES RATE (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL-Rental Rates Recreation and/or educational purposes only. Per hour,two(2)hour minimum Daytime (Monday—Friday: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) Lounge $10.7511.00 Room A, B/C, Conference Room $ 59.00 Gym $25.7526.75 Evenings (Monday—Thursday: 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) Lounge $25.7526.75 Room A, B, Conference Room $17.5021.00 Gym $344037.00 Room Package(Lounge& Gym) $51.5060.00 Entire building—Up to eight(8)hours* $688.00700.00 Friday Evening(5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) & Saturday and Sunday Lounge $31.0031.75 Room A,B, Conference Room $20.5024.00 Gym $37.0044.00 Room Package(Lounge& Gym) $62.0072.00 Entire building—Up to eight(8)hours* $710.00722.00 * Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires additional staff charges at$17.00 per hour. • Resolution No. 3 a e o. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (a) SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER-ROOM RENTAL RATES RATE (Group B) COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Recreational and/or educational purposes only. Per hour,two (2)hour minimum Lounge $16.2547.50 Room A,B, Conference Room $32.5036.00 Gym $55.5066.00 Room Package(Lounge& Gym) $95.75108.00 Entire Building-Up to eight(8)hours* $1,05'1.001,083.00 * Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires additional staffing fee at $17.00 per hour. (b) BREMERTON SR. CITIZENS CENTER-ROOM RENTAL.RATES (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Per hour,two (2)hour minimum Cardroom/Meeting Room $21.0022.00 Main Room $42.0043.00 Kitchen _ $21.0022.00 Additional staffing per hour $17.00 Entire Facility up to eight(8)hours $300.00310.00 (Group B) COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Per hour, (two)2 hour minimum Cardroom/Meeting Room $12.0044.00 Main Room $840086.00 Kitchen $424544.00 Additional staffing per hour $17.00 Entire Facility—Up to eight(8)hours $595.00 (c) PARK SHELTERS—RESERVATION FEES Four(4)hour sessions per reservation unless otherwise noted. Bremerton residents may reserve park shelters beginning January 1"for the upcoming year. Non-resident reservations will be accepted beginning February 1". (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Bataan Shelter $28.00 Blueberry Shelter $49.00 Evergreen Shelter 1 $72.0074.00 Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $36.0038.00 Evergreen Shelter 4(not reservable, first come first served) no charge Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $38.0040.00 Resolution No. ,3a$O PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (c) PARK SHELTERS—RESERVATION FEES Evergreen Amphitheatre with Amplified Sound $180.00185.00 Kiwanis Park Shelter $36.0038.00 Lions Park Shelter 1 $49.0050.00 Lions Park Shelter 2 $36,0038.00 Matan Park Shelter $28.00 Upper NAD $28.00 Lent Landing Gazebo $36.0028.00 Reserve portion of a park not having.a shelter. $36.00 (Group B) COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Bataan Shelter $42.00 Blueberry Shelter $73.0074.50 Evergreen Shelter1 $108.00110.00 Evergreen Shelter 2or 3 $54.0057.00 Evergreen Shelter 4(not reservable) no charge Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $57.0060.00 Evergreen Amphitheatre with Amplified Sound $238.00 Kiwanis Park Shelter $5'1.0057.00 Lions Park Shelter 1 $ -0075.00 Lions Park Shelter 2 $54.0057.00 Matan Park Shelter $42.00 Upper NAD $42.00 Lent Landing Gazebo $54.0042.00 Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $54.00 (d) SPECIAL EVENTS, CELEBRATIONS,WEDDINGS Louis Mentor Boardwalk $280.00300.00 Stage(20' x 24')—Available Memorial Day-Labor Day(per day) $200.00205.00 (e) ATHLETIC FIELD—RESERVATIONS Per hour unless noted (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL Youth Use $ -0015.00 Adult Use $26.0026.50 (Group B) COMMERCIAL $52.0053.00 Game Fees Baseball/Softball $37.0037.75 Soccer $ 0058.00 Resolution No. 3a5o • PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (t) BLUEBERRY PARK—P-PATCH ANNUAL RATE RATE Non-commercial gardening only. Raised Beds $13.00 10 x 20 Beds $52.00 • 16 x 30 Beds P2,0075.00 (g) LIONS TENNIS COURT LIGHTS 1 token(1 hour) $2.252.50 6 tokens (6 hours) $10.0011.25 2. PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES (a) NEW PROGRAMS See Section 3, subsection(a) (b) ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES VOLLEYBALL League Play per team,per game $30.00 Open Gym (Oct.—June) per person $4.00 BASKETBALL Men's League Play per team,per game $62-4062.50 Boy's League Play per team,per game $44.0035.00 Boy's League(Individual Reg.) per individual $11.0042.00 SOFTBALL Adult League Play per team,per game $11.0044.80 Adult League—Players fee per player,per game $4,301.93 TOURNAMENTS (SOFTBALL AND SOCCER) --INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS Lions—One Day $100.00408.00 Lions—Two Day $638.00650.00 Lions—Three Day $849-.00866.00 Pendergast—One Day $515.00525.00 Pendergast—Two Day $820.00836.00 Pendergast—Three Day $996.001,016.00 -- STATE TOURNAMENTS* Lions—One Day $556.00567.00 Lions—Two Day $830:00846.00 Lions—Three Day $966.00985.00 Pendergast—One Day •$ 20.00734.00 Pendergast—Two Day $966.00985.00 Pendergast—Three Day , $1,145.001,168.00 *Regional and National Tournaments cost to be negotiated depending on field preparation requirements. Resolution No. a$o PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees • 3. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AND RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS (a) PROGRAM FEE FORMULAS. Except for the Sr. Citizens Trip program,participant fees for activities (programs, classes, events, etc.)promoted by the Sr. Citizen Center and the Recreation Division are established by the following formulas: A. Activities when the instructor is on City payroll. *Based on"Not-to-Exceed"rates [(Total class hours including preparation)x(Instructor's hourly wage)x(1.5 Administration factor)] divided by(minimum#of students per activity)]+(the cost of group supplies divided by minimum#of students)+Cost of individual class supplies,if applicable=Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident. • B. Activities taught by contracted instruction. *Based on"Not-to-Exceed"rates [(Price per student required by the Instructor less class supply fees)x(1.5 Administration factor)]+Class supply fees=Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident. C. Non-Resident Fees for Recreational Programs. For recreation classes,programs, and rentals—ranging from: • • $5.00 to $25.00 add on 25% $25.01 to $50.00 add a flat$6.25 $50.01 to $100.00 add a flat $12.50 $100.01 to $200.00 add a flat $25.00 $200.01 +add a flat$50.00 (b) SENIOR CENTER ACTIVITIES (AGE 55+). RATE Couples Membership is for two people, at least one needs to be 55 or better, who reside at the same address. • Associate Memberships are for those individuals not yet 55 but still would like to participate in the programs, trips and classes offered at the Center. Senior Citizen—City Resident annual membership $44.-0015.00 Senior Citizen—Non-Resident annual membership $28.0030.00 Senior Center—City Resident Couples annual membership $ 0022.00 Senior Center—Non-Resident Couples annual membership $'12.0044.00 Senior Center—City Resident Associate annual membership $20:0021.00 Senior Center—Non-Resident Associate annual membership $10.0042.00 (c) SENIOR CENTER TRIPS Cost plus%25 • • • Resolution No. 3aso PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees 4. IVY GREEN CEMETERY- FEES AND CHARGES (Non-Resident Fee=Listed Rate Plus 25%) (a) GRAVE SITES RATE Adult $1,3'16.001,373.00 Infant (Not in Infant Sections) $1,316.001,373.00 Infant Section $337.00344.00 Veteran $785.00800.00 • (b) :LINERS (Subject to sales tax) Casket Liner $82049836.00 Cremation Liner $202.00206.00 Infant Liner $337.00344.00 Oversized Liner $1,100.001,122.00 (c) OPENING AND CLOSING Casket $ 50800.00 Cremation $281.00287.00 Infant $550.00561.00 Veteran $172.00481.00 (d) DISINTERNMENT Adult $1,683.001,716.00 Infant • $1,683.001,716.00 Urn $2-70:00275.00 Removal (only) $',' 1,133.00 (e) MARKER SETTING FEES Setting Fee $4-89:50184.00 (f) GRAVE SIDE SERVICES Chairs & Awning $ 400228.00 (g) MARKERS (Subject to sales tax) Value based on size Markers and type of marker Resolution No. 3a9O PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES—RATE TABLE G All Rates Listed Are"Not To Exceed" Fees G. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT RATE n 1. RIGHT-OF WAY USE PERMITS FEES Type A(Short Term Use)Regular(Misc. $160.00 Construction) Dumpster—Individual personal use No Charge Dumpster—Commercial/Construction $60.00 Type B (Disturbance of ROW) Sidewalk Repairs (2 inspections) No Charge Driveway,Transverse Street Patch and Spot Patches $160.00 (2 inspections) Frontage Improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, $3.15/ft with a$160.00 minimum illumination, etc.); Longitudinal Street Patch; and Utility Installation New Street $5.25/ft with a $625.00 minimum Water& Sewer Mains&Laterals (ROW Permit) (2 $160.00 inspections) Additional Inspection $67.00/hour+ equipment charges Type C (Long Term Use) Application and Processing $65.02 Annual Renewal $65.02 Type D Regular(Franchised Utility Routine Maintenance) $100.00 Plan Reviews $0.25/foot of improvement with$105 • minimum 2. D DITIONAL WORK $ 0068.41/hour+ equipment charges 23. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION $575.00 3. TELECOM MASTER PERMIT FEE $525.00/onc timc 1. TELECOM LICENSE FEE $210.00/onc time 54. BMC 10.24 HOUSEMOVING/OVERSIZE $600+$65/mile to .10 of a mile LOADS • Resolution No. 3,a BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)—RATE TABLE H All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees H. BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT) 1. Pre-production RATE Equipment Consultation $100/per hour Program Development $100/per hour Research $100/per hour Location $100/per hour Scripting $100/per hour Graphics Development $100/per hour - 2. PRODUCTION* Set-up $100 per hour Production $100/per hour Breakdown $100/per hour *minimum of 2 hours for any productions 3. Post Production • Edit $100 per hour Voice Over $100 per hour 4. Training Studio $100 3 hours of camera and director training—max 4 people Edit $50 5 hours of Apple Final Cut 5. Miscellaneous Equipment Installation $100 per hour Equipment Troubleshooting and Repair $100 per hour DVD Duplication $35.84 (includes tax) Studio-with all equipment (must be certified with crew training) $25 per hour(min 2 hours) 6. Membership (Annual) Individual Resident $25.00 Individual Non-Resident $50.00 Organization—Resident $75.00 Organization—Non-Resident $150.00 7: Rental Rate Field Equipment Tripod $25.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) • Resolution No. 3x60 BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)—RATE TABLE H All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees 7. Rental Rate Light Kit $100.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Lavalier Microphone (ea) $20.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Video Monitor $35.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Camera $150.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Studio Equipment Studio $50.00 Per Hour ($1,000.00 Deposit) Lights $25.00 Control Room $50.00 Wireless mics (4) $25.00 Teleprompter $25.00 Misc $10 ea Tables, chairs, easels, table cloths 8. Public Service Announcement with voice over. A public service announcement $50.00 Proof of Special Events with voice over is an option as part of Permit also required the Special Event Permit through the City. The public service announcement will air on BKAT for a minimum of two weeks. 9. Public Service Announcement with voice over. A public service announcement $100.00 with voice over is available without a Special Event Permit as a way to reach • the public. The public service announcement will air on BKAT for a minimum of two weeks. Resolution No. 3.160 GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX-RATE TABLE I All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (a) CASCADE COURSE (prices do not include sales tax) RATE Friday 18 Holes $45.00 Weekday 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $40.00 Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $50.00 Weekday 9 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $28.00 Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $30.00 Continuation Fee $25.00 Twilight Weekday(Mon-Thurs) $28.00 Twilight Weekend/Holiday $30.00 League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $23.00 Junior 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $17.00 Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $17.00 All Day Monday-Tuesday $85.00 Senior Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2) $240.00 Regular 10 Round Punch Card $320.00 Junior 10 Round Punch Card $120.00 Low Income Sr. Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2 & 5) $120.00 Daily Private Cart $18.00 Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $85.00 (b) OLYMPIC COURSE (prices do not include sales tax) RATE. Friday 18 Holes $72.00 Weekday 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $60.00 Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $82.00 Weekday 9 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $35.00 Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $45.00 Continuation Fee $35.00 Twilight Weekday(Mon-Thurs) $35.00 Twilight Weekend/Holiday $45.00 League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $23.00 Junior 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $25.00 Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $25.00 All day Monday-Tuesday $85.00 Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $100.00 Olympic Punch card plus $30.00 Annual Pass Single $2,200.00 Annual Pass Couple $3,400.00 Annual Pass Family $3,400.00 Annual Pass Junior (Mon-Thurs) (Note: 3) $500.00 Resolution No. 3,2.8 GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX-RATE TABLE I All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees 1. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday(May-September Not to Exceed Rate) 2. May be used for twilight any day of the week including holidays. 3. Friday-Sunday and Holidays depending on availability. 4. June through September,juniors may only play after 3:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. 5. Ages 62 &up with household income< $18,000. 6. A reduced rate, not less than the current twilight rate,may be offered with the approval of the Director of Parks & Recreation. Resolution No. 3..So KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER—RATE TABLE J All Rates Listed Are "Minimum" Fees - A. ROOM RENTAL RATE Puget Sound Ballroom- per section(4 sections) $375.00 Oyster Bay Room 0 $275.00 Marina Vista 1 & 2—per section $200.00 Marina Vista 3 $550.00 Glacier Cove 1 & 2—per section $200.00 Fountain Room $675.00 B. EVENT PACKAGE (in conjunction with food minimums)' RATE Puget Sound Ballroom- per section (4 sections) $500.00 Oyster Bay Room $375.00 Marina Vista 1 & 2—per section $300.00 Marina Vista 3 $750.00 Glacier Cove 1 & 2—per section $300.00 Fountain Room $675.00 1. 501c3 Organizations receive 50% off Room Rental rate with purchase of an Event Package. C. RECURRING ROOM RENTAL (at least 35 events per year) Room fee waived with food purchase for at least 60 people. Resolution No. 3&80 TELECOMMUNICATIONS—RATE TABLE K • K. TELECOMMUNICATIONS RATE 1. TOWER LEASE -APPLICATION, RENEWAL AND ASSIGNMENT FEE Fee $500.00 2. CABLE FRANCHISE - APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSITS Fee Deposit $3,500.00 (Actual cost will be based on staff time; City may require additional deposit(s) up to $3,500 per deposit if funds are exhausted) 3. MASTER PERMIT- APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSITS Fee Deposit $5,000.00 (Actual cost will be based on staff time plus legal review; . City may require additional deposit(s) up to $5,000 per deposit if . funds are exhausted) 4. TELECOM LICENSE FEE $210.00/one time Resolution No. 1220 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 7B . CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5314 Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 amending and re-establishing Utility Rates COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 and Fees Department: PW&U Presenter: Milenka Hawkins-Bates Phone: (360) 473-5333 SUMMARY: Ordinance to amend and re-establish the 2017 Assessments, Rates, Fees and Charges. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5314 ; 2) Exhibit A FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Misc. Fees and Charges were adjusted by change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, Seattle for the year ending September 30, 2016 at 2.10%. The Utility rates were adjusted to the dashboard recommendations. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda i General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5314 amending and re-establishing the 2017 Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other related services. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny [' Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated,01/07/1 5 ORDINANCE NO. 5314 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5288 regarding rates and fees relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other related services. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5288 by this ordinance;NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Rate Tables established. Rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for general facilities charges, as established in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5288, are hereby reestablished and incorporated herein by this reference. Rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other related services, as established in Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 5288, are hereby amended and reestablished as set forth in the rates tables attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Rate Tables—Effective date. The rate tables as amended and set forth in Exhibit A of this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2017. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2016. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of , 2016. • PATTY LENT, Mayor 1 2017 Utilities Rates and Fees APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk PUBLISHED the day of , 2016 EFFECTIVE the day of • , 2016 ORDINANCE NO. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works&Utilities\2017 Utility Rates&Fees Ordinance.doc • • 2 2017 Utilities Rates and Fees Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES • EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 • Inside City Limits Outside City Limits CONNECTION FEES Water Connection Fees 5/8" x 3/4" $ 2,651.00 $ 2,710.00 $ 3,981.00 $ 4,065.00 1" $ 2,862.00 $ 2,922.00 $ 1,293.00 $ 4,383.00 1 1/2" $ 6,063.00 $ 6,190.00 • $ 9,091.50 $ 9,285.00 2" $ 6,859.00 $ 7,003.00 $ 10,288.50 $ 10,505.00 3" -4" x 4" -Service to property line S----1-2,7-74,00 70.00 $ 13,038.00 $---1-95-1-5-5,08 $ 19,557.00 3" -4" x 6" - Service to property line $ 1-2,,11.00 $ 13,216.00 S-1-9344-6,04 $ 19,824.00 3" -4" x 8" - Service to property line $---1-372-5-8,04 $ 13,536.00 $ 19,887.00 $ 20,305.00 3 4"x 10" -Service to property line $ 14,912.00 $ 15,225.00 S-22,3600 $ 22,838.00 3" -4"x 12" -Service to property line S-1-3456,00 $ 13,279.00 $ 1-9,39900 $ 19,919.00 4" -4" x 4" - Service to property line $. 11,116.00 $ 14,412.00 $ 21,171.00 $ 21,619.00 4" -4" x 6" -Service to property line $ 11,291.00 $ 14,591.00 $--2474-3-6,00 . $ 21,886.00 4" -4"x 8" -Service to property line $ 14,605.00 $ 14,912.00 $ 21,907.00 $ 22,367.00 4" -4" x 10" -Service to property line $ 16,258.00 $ 16,599.00 $---247-38-7,00 $ 24,899.00 4" -4" x 12" - Service to property line $ 16,263.00 $ 16,605.00 $ 21,394.00 $ 24,906:00 6" -6"x 6" - Service to property line $ 17,117.00 $ 17;476.00 $ 25,675.00 $ 26,214.00 6" -6"x 8" -Service to property line $ 17,131.00 $ 17,797.00 ' $ 26,116.00 $ 26,695.00 6" -6"x 10" -Service to property line $ 19,08v8404 $ 19,485.00 $ 28,626.00 $ 29,227.00 6" -6" x 12" - Service to property line $ 19,084.00 $ 19,485.00 $ 28,626.00 $ 29,227.00 8" - 8" x 8" -Service to property line $ 22,671.00 $ 23,150.00 $-----32604444 $ 34,725.00 8" -8"x 10" -Service to property line $ 24,397.00 $ 24,909.00 $ 36,595.00 $ 37,363.00 8" - 8" x 12" -Service to property line $ 21,397.00 $ 24,909.00 $ 36,595.00 $ 37,363.00 10" - 10"x 10" -Service to property line $ 27,730.00 $ 28;312.00 $ 11,595.00 $ 42,468.00 10" - 10" x 12,' - Service to property line $-2-841-8410 $ 28,811.00 $—X2,227.00 $ 43,216.00 Greater than 12" Wet Tapping (Water Main Only)* 4" x 4" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 3,012.00 $ 3,075.00 $ 1,518.00 $ 4,613.00 4"x 6" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 3,16.08 $ 3,253.00 $ 1,779.00 $ 4,879.00 • 4" x 8" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 3,500.00 $ 3,574.00 $--5450,00 $ 5,360.00 4" x 10" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 5,151.00 $ 5,262.00 $ 7,731.00 $ 7,893.00 4"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill $ 5,159.00 $ 5,267.00 $ 7,738.00 $ 7,900.00 6" x 6" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 3,113.08 $ 3,485.00 $ 5,119.00 $ 5,226.00 6" x 8" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 300 $ 3,805.00 $ .5,590.00 $ 5,707.00 6" x 10" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 5,381.00 $ 5,494.00 $ 8,071.00 $ 8,240.00 6" x 12" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 5,381.00 $ .5,494.00 $ 8,071.00 $ 8,240.00 8"x 8" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 1,35900 $ 4,451.00 $ 6,538.00 $ 6,675.00 8" x 10" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 6,083.00 $ 6,211.00 S-9,4-24,04 $ 9,316.00 8" x 12" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 6,200.00 $ 6,330.00 S-97-340,00 $ 9,495.00 10" x 10" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 6,931.00 $ 7,077.00 S-1-03-3464l0 $ 10,614.00 10" x 12" -excluding excavation&backfill $ 7,392.00 $ 7,547.00 $ 11,088.00 $ 11,321.00 12"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill $ 7,301.00 $ 7,457.00 $ 10,956.00 $ 11,186.00 2" -service to property line $ 3,705.00 $ 3,783.00 $ . 5,557.00 $ 5,674.00 4" x 4" -service to property line .$ 8,807.00 $ 8,992.00 $ 13,210.00 $ 13,487.00 4"x 6" -service to property line $ 8,18-2.00 $ 9,171.00 S----1-347-3,00 $ 13,756.00 4" x 8" -service to property line $ 9,296.00 $ 9,491.00 $ 13,944.00 $ 14,237.00 4" x 10" -service to property line S-1-0,94-9,00 $ 11,179.00 $ 16,423.03 $ 16,768.00 1 of 8 Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits 4" x 12" -service to property line $ 10,951.00 $ 11,184.00 $ 16,131.00 $ 16,776.00 6" x 6" -service to property line $ 8,8-7-5-00 $ 9,061.00 $ 13,312.00 $ 13,592.00 6" x 8" -service to property line $ 9489.00 $ 9,382.00 $ 13,783.00 $ 14,072.00 6" x 10"-service to property line $ 10,813.00 $ 11,071.00 $ 16,261.00 $ 16,606.00 • 6" x.12" -service to property line - $ 10,813.00 $ 11,071.00 $ 16,261.00 $ 16,606.00 8" x 8" -service to property line $---1-03-1-7400 $ 10,388.00 $ 15,261.00 $ 15,581.00 8" x 10" -service to property line , $ 11,898.00 $ 12,148.00 $ 17,817.00 $ 18,222.00 8" x 12" -service to property line $------1-1-49•7,00 $ 12,147.00 $--1-744-5,00 $ 18,220.00 10" x 10" -service to property line • $-137394,0-0 $ 13,672.00 $-2-030-8-6,00 $ 20,508.00 10" x 12" -service to property line S-1378-7-9,00 $ . 14,170.00 $-2-078-1-8,00 $ 21,255.00 12"x 12" -service to property line $ 11,767.00 $ 15,077.00 $ 22,150.00 $ 22,615.00 • Fire Hydrant Installation* . 6" x 8" and smaller-service to property line $ 11,190.00 $ 11,731.00 $ 17,235.00 $ 17,597.00 6"x 10" -service to property line $ 13,11468 $ 13,420.00 $ '19,716.00 $ 20,130.00 6"x 12"-service to property line $ 133,144.00 $ 13,420.00 $ 19,716.00 $ 20,130.00 PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION FEES • Engineering Services** . Plan Check Fees Main Extensions: per foot $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.14 $ 0.44 BUT not less than $ 24400 $ 249.00 $ 366.00 $ 374.00 (Includes hydrants and appurtenances and connection to water system) Pump Stations $ 613.00 $ 626.00 $ . 920.00 $ 939.00 Fireline Extension $ 98.00 $ 100.00 $ 117.00 $ 150.00 Irrigation Systems $ 9&08 $ 100.00_ $ 117.00 $ 150.00 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 81.00 $ 83.00 $ 121.00 $ 124.00 ' Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees*** • Preliminary Drainage Plans . Residential Development $ 379.00 $ • 387.00 N/A N/A Non-Residential Development. $ 262.00 $ 268.00 N/A N/A Plus per IHSU $ 11.11 $ 11.65 Final Detailed Drainage Plans • Residential Development(per lot) 0-20 Lots $ 11.07 $ 41.93 N/A N/A 21 -50 Lots $ 29.67 $ 30.29 N/A N/A 51 - 100 Lots $ 26.25 $ 26.80 N/A N/A 100+Lots $ 22.82 $ 23.30 N/A • N/A Minimum Charge $ 291.00 $ 297.00 N/A N/A Non-Residential Development per IHSU $ 22.82 $ . 23.30 N/A N/A • Minimum Charge $ 319.00 $ 356.00 ' N/A N/A • 2 of 8 • • • Exhibit A •• ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Resubmittal Fees First Resubmittal No Charge No Charge N/A N/A Subsequent Resubmittal $ 291.00 $ 297.00 N/A N/A Field Inspection Fees Water main extensions(per foot) $ 1.29 $ 1.32 $ 1.94 $ • 1.98 but not less than: $ 177.00 $ 487.00 $ 715.50 $ 731.00 Pump Station $ 629.00 $ 642.00 $ 943.50 $ 963.00 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 84,00 $ 83.00 $ • 121.00 $ 124.00 Wastewater Connection Fees • Lateral Connection at P/L $ 8-1-:00 $ 83.00 $ 1-2-10 $ 124.00 Lateral Connection at Main $ 308.00 $ 314.00 $ 462.00 $ 472.00 Conveyance Facility Ext. (Per Foot) . $ 1.70 $ 1.74 $ 2.55 $ 2.60 but not less than: $ 371.00 $ 379.00 $ 556.50 $ 568.00 Pump Station $ 617.00 $ 630.00 $ 925.50 $ 945.00 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 8400 $ 83.00 $ 1-2-100 $ 124.00 Storm Drainage Inspection Fees*** • Residential Development(per lot) $ 17.12 $ 17.48 N/A N/A Non-Residential Development(per IHSU) $ 17.12 $ 17.48 N/A N/A Minimum Charge $ 175.00 $ 179.00 N/A N/A Conveyance Facility Extensions(per foot) $ • 0.91 $ 0.93 N/A N/A Minimum Charge $ 319.00 $ 356.00 N/A N/A Unscheduled Inspections****(per site visit) $ 81.00 $ 83.00 N/A . N/A MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES • Office Services New Account(includes water turn-on) $ 20.00 $ . 20.00 $ 2000 $ 20.00 Account Maintenance $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Past Due Notice $ 2.50 $ 3.00 $ 2.50 $ 3.00 ACH Credit $ - $ - Lien Recovery Charge $ 100.00 $ 102.00 $ 100.00 $ 102.00 Close Account/Meter Read/Water Service Turn- off $ 20-:00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 _ $ 20.00 Utility/Lien Search Fee(Manual)per parcel $ 30.00 $ 31.00 $ 30.00 $ 31.00 Park Reservation Fee(non-refundable) $ 1-00.00 $ 102.00 $ 100.00 $ 102.00 • • Field Services Pavement Restoration Charge . (refundable,if assessed and not required) Asphalt Patch $ • 694:00 $ • 709.00 $ 1,01-1.00 $ 1,063.00 Concrete Patch $ 1,218.001,274.00 $ 1,872.00 $ 1,911.00 $ Asphalt Trench $ 1,582.00 $ 1,615.00 $ 2,373.00 $ 2,423.00 Concrete Trench $ 1,598.00 $ 1,632.00 $- 2,3-90 $ 2,447.00 County Road Permit N/A N/A Cost Cost 3of8 • • Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Water Meter Installation 3/4" & 1" $ 115.00 $ 148.00 y 1-1-5,00 148.00 1-1/2" &2" $ 182.00 $ 229.00 $ 1-,82.00 . 229.00 3" and greater Actual Time&Materials. • Actual Time&Materials Water Meter Reactivation-Snowbirds $ 50.00 $ 51.00 $ "50.00 51.00 • Water Meter Tampering Tampering Fee $ 250.00 $ 255.00 $-250,00 255.00 Tampering Repair Actual Time&Materials ual Time&Mate] Fire Service-Detector,Meter&MXU $ 160.00 $ 470.00 $ . 460.00 470.00 Storz Adapter . $ 237.00 $ 242.00 $--2-3-7,00 242.00 • Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on (Customer Request) Regular Hours $ 10.00 $ 41.00 $ 10.00 $ . 41.00 After Hours $ 1-82.00 $ 186.00 $-182,00 $ 186.00 Delinquency Notice $ 2000 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 • Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on • (Delinquent Accounts) Regular Hours $ 60:00 $ 61.00 S--=‘0,00 $ 61.00 After Hours $ 182.00 $ 186.00 $ 182..00 $ 186.00 Flow and Pressure Test(Uncertified) 3/4" & 1" meters only $ 81.00 $ 83.00 $ 8-1.-00 $ 83.00 1-1/2" &2"meters only $ 118.00 $ 151.00 $ 118.00 $ 151.00 Larger than 2" Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Meter Test Fee(based on meter size) 3/4" & 1" $ 182.00 $ 186.00 $ 182.00 $ 186.00 1-1/2" &2" $ . 218.00 $ 253.00 $ 248.00 $ 253.00 3" or greater Utility Plant Locates Regular Hours N/C N/C N/C N/C After Hours $ 182.00 $ 186.00 $---1-8-2,00 $ 186.00 Emergency N/C N/C N/C N/C Utility Compliance Specialist Inspection $ 8 00 $ 83.00 $ 8400 $ 83.00 Administration Fee $ 31.00 $ 35.00 $ 31.00 $ 35.00 Utility Labor Rate Hourly(Eqp not included) N/A $ 67.00 'N/A $ ' 67.00 4 of 8 Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES General Service-Monthly Service Charge Meter Size 5/8 x 3/4 inches $ 12.26 12.84 . $ 18.39 $ 19.26 1 inch $ 11.01 14.68 $ 21.03 $ 22.03 1 1/2 inch $ ' 19.93 20.87 $ 29.89 $ 31.31 2 inch $ 26.77 28.04 $ 10.16 $ 42.06 3 inch $ 50.79 53.20 $ 76.18 $ 79.80 4 inch $ 91.38 98.86 $ 141.57 $ 148.29 6 inch $ 335.57 351.51 $ 503.36 $ 527.27 8 inch $ 1,225.78 1,284.01 $ 1,838.68 $ 1,926.02 10 inch $ 1,371.83 4,579.50 $ 6,557.74 $ 6,869.23 12 inch $ 16,135.13 17,215.80 $ 21,652.69 $ 25,823.70 Residential Commodity Charge(per HCF) Per HCF/Month $ 2.12 2.22 $ 3.18 3.33 Non-Residential Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.91 2.00 $ 2.87 3.00 Fire Protection-Monthly Service Charge Service Size 1 inch $ 25.11 26.65 $ 38.16 39.97 1 1/2 inch $ 38.29 40.11 $ 57.11 60.17 2 inch $ 19.78 52.15 $ 71.68 78.23 3 inch $ 51.86 57.46 $ 82.30 . 86.21 4 inch $ 59.80 62.64 $ 89.69 93.95 6 inch $ 74.63 78.18 $ 111.95 117.27 8 inch $ 99.37 104.09 $ 119.05 156.13 10 inch $ 139.06 145.66 $ 208.59 218.49 12 inch . $ 198.65 208.09 $ 297.98 312.13 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 3.81 4.02 $ 5.75 6.02 -For Usage Other Than Firefighting Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen-Monthly Service Charge Base Charge(per account) 5/8" x 3/4" $ 12.26 12.84 $ 18.39 19.26 Base Charge(per account) 1" $ 14.01 14.68. $ 21.03 22.03 Commodity Charge 0-5 HCF/Month Over 5 HCF/Month $ 2.12 2.22 $ 3.18 3.33 Temporary/Construction Meter 1"Meter Deposit $ 390:-00 '300.00 $ 300.00 300.00 Base Fee(per month) $ 11.01 14.68 $ 21.03 22.03 5 of 8 Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Set Up Fee&Removal Fee $ 2-2900 296.00 $ 229.00 296.00 Hydrant meter(3" Meter) Deposit • $ 2,000.00 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00 Base Fee(per month) $ 50.79 53.20 $ 76.18 79.80 Set Up Fee $ 229.00 296.00 $ 229.00 296.00 Equipment Loss/Damage Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.91 2.00 $ 2.87 3.00 • City Parks and Recreation Dept. -Irrigation Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 0.95 1.00 Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex-Irrigation Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.30 1.36 RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES Monthly Service Charge Single Family Base Charge(per account) $ 39.24 34.24 $ 51.36 51.36 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.59 4.59 $ 6.89 6.89 Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. on 1 Meter Base Charge(per unit) $ 27.12 27.12 $ 40.68 40.68 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.59 4.59 $ 6.89 6.89 Multi-Family Base Charge(per unit) $ 27.12 27.12 $ 40.68 40.68 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.59 4.59 $ 6.89 6.89 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen • Base Charge(per account) $ . 21.24 21.24 $ 32.26 32.26 Commodity Charge(per HCF) 0- 5 HCF/Month Over 5 HCF/Month • $ 4.59 4.59 $ 6.89 6.89 • Commercial I • Base Charge(per account) $ 50.61 50.61 $ 75.93 75.93 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.73 4.73 $ 7.10 7.10 Commercial II Base Charge(per account) $ 51.19 51.49 $ 77.24 77.24 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 7.10 7.40 $ 11.10 11.10 Commercial III Base Charge(per account) $ 50.99 50.99 $ 76.48 76.48 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ . 6.06 6.06 $ 9.09 9.09 6018 • Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,'AND CHARGES • EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Beverage Production Base Charge(per account) $ 51.19 51.49 $ 77.21 77.24 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.81 4.81 $ 7.21 • 7.21 Commercial Fountains-Separately Metered . Base Charge(per account) $ 50.61 50.61 $ 75.93 75.93 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.56 1.56 $ 2.31 2.34 Septage Disposal(per gallon of tank capacity) $ 0.26 0.26 $ 0.38 0.38 Leachate Per Gallon of Tank Capacity Individual Residential Grinder Pumps Grinder Pump Surcharge $ 11.03 11.03 $ 16.55 16.55 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled - Grinder Pump Surcharge $ 8.2g 8.28 $ 12.12 • 12.42 RETAIL STORMWATER RATES Monthly Service Charge Residential I(Single Family/Duplex) • Base Charge(per account) $ 11.54 13.73 N/A N/A • Exception: Duplex with 2 Meters(per account) $ 5.80 6.90 N/A N/A Residential II-SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 50%of the Res I Base Charge $ 5.77 6.87 N/A N/A • Residential III-SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) -100%of the Res I Base Charge' $ 11.51 13.73 N/A N/A Commercial I Base Charge(per IHSU) $ 11.51 13.73 N/A N/A Commercial II-SW Impact Fee(per IHSU) • 50%of the Comm I Base Charge $ 5.77 6.87 N/A N/A Commercial III-SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 100%of the Comm I Base Charge $ 11.51 13.73 N/A ' N/A Public School Districts(per account) $ 11.51 13.73 N/A N/A Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen • Base Charge(per account) $ 7.02 8.36 N/A N/A Multi-Family&Commercial Rate Adjustment Water Quality(per IHSU) $ 1.28 1.52 N/A N/A Water Quantity(per IHSU) $ 3.86 4.59 N/A N/A 7of8 • Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2017 • 2016 2017 2016 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Stormwater Penalty New Multi-Family&Commercial development without on-site detention Charge(per IHSU) $ 2.55 3.04 N/A N/A *Pavement Restoration Charge May Also Be Assessed **Fees include original review and one resubmittal review. Additional reviews will be charged at miscellaneous hourly rate(above). • ***Does not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot. ****(Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of a project and billed after the • final site inspection. Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final occupancy • • • • • 8 of 8 AGENDA BILL 7C CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the Gold Study Session Date: November 9, 2016 Mountain Golf Course Management COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Agreement Department: Legal Presenter: Roger Lubovich Phone: (360) 473-2335 SUMMARY: The Second Amendment to the Gold Mountain Management Agreement extends the term of the Agreement to expire December 31, 2019 and makes other related changes. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 2 to the Gold Mountain Golf Course Management Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda o General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Gold Mountain Golf Course Management Agreement; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 SECOND AMENDMENT TO GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Gold Mountain Golf Club This SECOND AMENDMENT TO GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on the later of the two dates set forth below by and between THE CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and COLUMBIA HOSPITALITY, INC., a Washington corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Manager"). WHEREAS, Owner and Manager are parties to that certain Golf Course Management Agreement dated October 12, 2012 (the "Agreement") under which Manager manages and operates the facilities and other improvements commonly known as the Gold Mountain Golf Club (the "Club Facilities"); and WHEREAS, the parties entered into a First Amendment to Agreement ("First Amendment") to extend the term of the Agreement for one additional year and to make other related amendments; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, as set forth in this Second Amendment to Agreement ("Second Amendment") to provide an additional extension of the term of the Agreement and to make other related amendments; NOW THEREFORE, for mutual consideration, Owner and Manager agree as follows: 1. Renewal. Section 3.01 of the Agreement entitled "Initial Term and Renewal", as amended by Section 1 of the First Amendment, is hereby replaced with the following: Manager's services under this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2013 (the "Commencement Date") and, unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement, shall continue until the third (3d) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the "Initial Term"). Upon expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall be renewed for a one year term beginning January 1, 2016 and expiring on December 31, 2016 as established in the First Amendment to this Agreement. Upon expiration of the one year renewal term, this Agreement shall be renewed for an additional three year term beginning January 1, 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2019 as established in Second Amendment to this Agreement (the `Renewal Term,' and together with the Initial Term,the `Term'). Any additional renewals, if any, shall be mutually agreed upon in writing in advance of the expiration of the Renewal Term and approved by the City Council. 2. Incentive Management Fee. The second paragraph added by Section 2 of the First Amendment to Section 4.02 of the Agreement entitled "Incentive Management Fee" is hereby replaced with the following: . 1 • Second Amendment to Golf Course Management Agreement Notwithstanding the foregoing, during.the Renewal Term, and in addition to the Base Management Fee, Owner shall pay Manager for services provided under this Agreement an annual Incentive Management Fee equal to forty percent(40%) of the Club Facilities' Net Operating Income in excess of Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00). The annual Incentive Management Fee shall be computed and paid annually based on year-to-date figures set forth in the Annual Statement. 3. Capital Improvements. Subsection 6.02(b) of the Agreement entitled "Capital Improvements and the Capital Reserve Account" is hereby replaced with the following: Funds deposited in the Capital Reserve Account shall be used solely for paying for Capital Improvements included and approved in the Annual Plans and Budgets or otherwise approved by Owner, provided, that Manager may make expenditures out of the Capital Reserve Account without the prior approval of Owner if Manager determines in its reasonable discretion that expenditures are required to protect life or property or comply with Applicable Laws. If the estimate approved by Owner exceeds the Capital Reserve Account balance, Owner will provide the additional funds required for such work within fifteen(15) days after receiving Manager's funding request, and in the event Owner fails to make such deposit, Manager may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' notice to Owner. At the end of each Operating Year, any amount remaining in the Capital Reserve Accouiits together with accumulated interest shall be carried forward and credited as an addition to the Capital Reserve Accounts otherwise established for the next succeeding Operating Year. Capital Improvements shall be performed by Owner or Manager as mutually agreed upon. The cost of all Capital Improvements shall be borne solely by Owner, shall not be an Operating Expense, and shall be reimbursed from the Capital Reserve Account to the extent there are funds in that account. Manager shall comply with RCW Chapters 39.04, 39.12 and 39.80 relating to public works contracting, if and as applicable, for capital improvements. 4. Notices. Section 14.04 of the Agreement entitled "Notices" is hereby amended to update contact information to read as follows: All notices will be in writing and will be deeiiled duly given if(a) personally delivered, (b) sent by facsimile (with electronic confirmation of delivery), (c) sent by overnight delivery through a nationally-recognized overnight delivery service or (d) mailed registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Each notice will be delivered to the intended recipient at the applicable address or facsimile number set forth below or at any other address or facsimile number as any party notifies the other party in writing. Notices or other communications that aresent by (x) personal delivery or facsimile, will be deemed received on the day sent or on the first business day thereafter if not sent on a business day, (y) overnight delivery, will be deemed received on the first business day immediately following the date sent, and (z) U.S. mail, will be deemed received three business days immediately following the date sent. Notices shall be sent to the following addresses: If to Owner: City of Bremerton City Hall, 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 Attention: Director of Parks and Recreation 2 Second Amendment to Golf Course Management Agreement Telephone: (360) 473-5305 Facsimile: 360) 473-5882 • If to Manager: Columbia Hospitality, Inc. 2223 Alaskan Way, Suite 200 • Seattle, WA 98121 Attention: John Oppenheimer Telephone: (206) 239-1800 Facsimile: (206) 239-1801 with a copy to Garvey Schubert Barer 1191 Second Avenue, 18`'' Floor Seattle, WA 98101-2939 Attention: Gregory J. Duff, Esq. Telephone: (206) 464-3939 Facsimile: (206) 464-0125 5. Additional Terms and Conditions. Subsection (a) of Section 4 of the First Amendment is hereby replaced with the following: a) Debt Service Guarantee. In the event Manager operates the Club Facilities for a full Operating Year during the term of this lease, as set forth in this Second Amendment, and the Net Operating Income of the Club Facilities for the Operating Year is less than the Club Facilities' annual bond debt service obligations for such year(which the parties agree will not exceed a total $410,000 for the purpose of this debt obligation), Manager shall compensate Owner the difference. This obligation to compensate the Owner is subject to, and shall be waived to the extent that Manager's operation of the Club Facilities' is materially and adversely affected by, (i) any of the conditions set forth in Section 2.05 of the Agreement, (ii) a taking by eminent domain or (iii) a recession(i.e. two consecutive quarters of GDP decline or as otherwise defined by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research) or other similar significant macro- economic event that affects the greater Puget Sound region (e.g. the dot-com /post 9-11 recession of 2001or the "great recession" of 2007 —2009), that in each case have a material adverse effect on the Club Facilities and their operation. 6. Other Terms. All other terms of the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment and as further amended by this Second Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. 7. Effective Date of Amendments. The amendments as set forth in this Second Amendment shall be effective January 1, 2017. 8. Duplicate Originals. This document is executed in duplicate originals. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Golf Course Management Agreement on the day and year written below. 3 Second Amendment to Golf Course Management Agreement CITY OF BREMERTON . COLUMBIA HOSPITALITY, INC. By: Patty Lent By: John Oppenheimer Its: Mayor Its: Chief Executive Officer Date: Date: R:\Legal\Legal\Files\Current Active Files\Gold Mountain\Columbia Hospitality Management Agreements\Second Amendment to Management Agreement-1 1-4-16 Final.doe • • • 4 Second Amendment to Golf Course Management Agreement AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 7D CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3281 supporting Study Session Date: - a Capital Budget Request for the Quincy COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 16, 2016 Square on 4th Downtown Revitalization Department: Public Works Project Presenter: Chal Martin Phone: (360) 473-5758 SUMMARY: This resolution of support is for a State of,Washington capital budget request for $500,000 to design the Quincy Square on 4th project. Quincy Square, located on 4th Street between Washington and Pacific, is an integrated urban revitalization project that, when completed, will be one of the Puget Sound's great public spaces and a model for what livable downtown neighborhoods should look like. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 3281 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project's funding plan is that it will be 100% grant funded, utilizing grants from various sources so that the grant matches required can be met by the other grants. The fundraising effort is already underway. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: o No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda o General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 3281 supporting a Capital Budget Request for the Quincy Square on 4th Downtown Revitalization Project. COUNCIL ACTION: El Approve El Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 RESOLUTION NO. 3281 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton in support of a capital budget request for the Quincy Square on 4th Downtown Revitalization Project. WHEREAS, the Quincy Square on 4th Downtown Revitalization Project ("Quincy Square Project") concept has been developed over the past two years by a grass roots consortium of active and interested citizens, professional groups and developers; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project, located on 4th Street between Washington Avenue and Pacific Avenue, is an integrated urban revitalization project that, when completed, will be one of the Puget Sound's great public spaces and a model for what livable downtown neighborhoods should look like; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project vision seeks to turn a long-neglected city block into an active, housing based day-to-night urban center with focused arts, entertainment, and evening-centric retail spaces; and WHEREAS, the strategic combination of residential and commercial uses lining a modern workable and walkable streetscape will yield a result whose impact will be felt throughout Bremerton and the region; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project will assist Bremerton in eliminating its chronic designation downtown as a severely distressed blight zone, spurring new investment by attracting new residents to live downtown, creating demand for new housing which will spur badly needed market rate and affordable apartments and spot retail; and WHEREAS,the Quincy Square Project supports local needs and generates increased business traffic while drawing new visitors to downtown Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project will attract a minimum of$17.2 million of additional investment in the buildings fronting 4th street, including 43 new residential units fronting 4th street in the short term, with many additional units possible in the future; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project will contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because it will attract new, permanent residents to.Bremerton's downtown area, many of whom will make the choice to not own a car because of the easy walking proximity of downtown services, including public transportation(Ferry to Seattle; Bremerton Transportation Center just 3 blocks away); and the unique downtown ambience created by the Quincy Square Project will continue to attract new, no-car residents; and. 1 Quincy Square Project WHEREAS, private investment of$17.2 million, to renovate four(potentially six) derelict, blighted, 30-yr vacant 4th Street buildings into market rate and affordable housing with spot retail, is already under way; and WHEREAS, private investment into the buildings that line the street will create new property tax revenue, sales tax revenue, and business occupation tax revenue: 16,000 square feet of potential retail space along 4th Street currently sits vacant, representing $4 million in annual projected, taxable retail sales (at $250/sf); and WHEREAS, with a $21.9 million(private+public right-of-way) investment on this block of 4th street, assuming a job is created or retained for each $60,000 of investment, this project will create or retain 365 jobs during design and construction; and in the long term, the Quincy Square Project will create a desirable urban neighborhood and a flexible public gathering space ideal for hosting a wide range of festivals, markets, and other community events; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project will be a catalyst for re-development. throughout Bremerton, as evidenced by four new projects along the adjacent blocks, a 20-unit residential project valued at $2.5 million, a 50-unit residential project and grocery store valued at 7.3 million, and two additional commercial developments valued at $500,000 each currently planned for development as a result of the Quincy Square Project, representing 180 new/retained jobs; and WHEREAS, the Quincy Square Project leverages momentum behind the historic Roxy Theater as a project centerpiece, tying in new music and film events while honoring an inspirational Bremerton raised role model, Quincy Jones; and WHEREAS, Quincy Jones has embraced the concept and provided his permission to use his name for the project; NOW THEREFORE,. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of.Bremerton is in support of the Quincy Square on 4th Downtown Revitalization Project and further supports a capital budget request of$500,000 for design work for the project. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shallnot affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 2 Quincy Square Project 'SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2016. ERIC YOUNGER,Council President APPROVED AS.TO FORM: _ ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORN, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Public Works\Quincy Square on 4th Resolution of Support.docx • 3 Quincy Square Project Council Resolution 3281—Quincy Square on 4th 7D I would like the City Council to consider building Quincy Square and improving the street it is on to one of the downtown streets that have not been improved in the last 20 years. The list would include: ➢ 4th Street from Park to Warren ➢ 5th Street from Park to Warren • 5th Street from Pacific to Park The City, State, Federal Government does not have the money to keep on redoing projects. I believe Quincy Square belongs on 5th Street(Pacific to Park). It would be right next to the Admiral Theatre. The Admiral Theatre has all kinds of doors on that side which would facilitate shops/bars etc. As a matter of fact,when the Admiral holds an event with 999 people, how special it would be to have before the show cocktails and horderves on Quincy Square!! It would help the Admiral and everyone would create a special memory to return to Bremerton for more of Quincy Square. Today the Kitsap Library had 63 kids in for a Kiwanis sponsored event(free book etc.)from Crown Hill Elementary School. I guess the Kiwanis are very generous and sponsor kids (3rd Graders)from the Bremerton School District to come downtown and visit the library. Won't it be fun for these kids to play on Quincy Square? See we have to show the younger generation what downtown Bremerton is all about. This would start. Maybe someday they will remember this and move downtown when they have a family. We have generations to change and this would be the start. Soon the Kitsap Sun will vacate the building they own. Since 2001,they have gone from 6 parking lots down to one. They have shut down the printing and paper assembling process in this building. With Quincy Square,the Bremerton Sun would probably consider leasing out or selling the building. All of the shops on 4th Street (Pacific to Park) have back door entrances or"alley entrances". Since the shops are too deep for today's retail (100 feet whereas retail today prefers 50 feet),the building owners could dress up the alley and open new businesses with the doors on the alley. When we need to close the street for Quincy Square events, no problem. Leave the 2-way traffic to the Government(Shipyard) parking garage. The alley behind the Kitsap Sun exits onto Pacific to help with traffic. The old Medical Dental building is owned by Mike Brown and Sound West Group. It can facilitate more businesses/shops as well as the Sound West Group may consider developing the parking lot between the old Medical Dental building and Kitsap Sun. Again let's try for Quincy Square being the kick start to redeveloping another part of the downtown core. For full disclosure- I own the building next to the Kitsap Library(the old Schutt Clinic). I don't believe this letter is a conflict of interest but I now have stated for the record this request involves a commercial building that I own. Quincy Square should be a kick start to help improve the downtown core, please consider putting it on a street that has not been improved. I have stated my preference but at least consider one of the unimproved streets in the downtown core for this project. Terry Fessner 360-471-8847