HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2017 AGENDA PACKETCITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 I Phone (360) 473-5280
JULY 12, 2017
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
The Study Session is open to the public but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no
action is anticipated during the Study Session; and the content of these items is subject to change. If
approved by Council, the items will be placed on the July 19, 2017 Council Meeting Agenda:
A. INFORMATION BRIEFING
1. Update on the 2017 Special Legislative Sessions — Bryan McConaughy, BMcConsulting
2. Bremerton Kitsap Access Television Succession Plan — Charleen Burnette, BKAT Manager
B. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED - The following items are budgeted items or subjects that have
been raised by the appropriate Council Committee Members:
1. Purchase of 12.5% Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite Solution from JCI Jones, Inc. for the Westside
Wastewater Treatment Plant
2. Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11.08 entitled "Sidewalk and
Street Frontage"
3. Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 13.04.140 entitled "Liquor"
under the Park Code
4. Proposed Public Hearing on Resolution to amend Department of Financial Services — Rate
Table A relating to Fees for Public Records
C. BRIEFINGS AND FULL PRESENTATIONS
1. Update on Puget Sound Regional Council's "Regional Centers Framework" Information
only...
2. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section
20.46.010 regarding "Accessory Dwelling Units"
3. Acceptance of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2018
Funding Allocations
D. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
Public Works & Utilities Committee Briefing (7/11/17 Meeting) — Chair Dino Davis
Public Safety & Parks Committee Briefing (7/12/17 Meeting) — Chair Leslie Daugs
Other General Council Business (As necessary...)
E. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
® Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations
should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Briefing on the 2017 Special Study Session Date:
Legislative Sessions
Presenter:
Phone
July 12, 2017
Bryan McConaughy,
BMcConsulting
(206) 953-6026
SUMMARY: A briefing on the 2017 Special Legislative Sessions will be provided.
HANDOUTS:
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Form Created 5/4/15
❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation
City of Bremerton Legislative Report
Prepared by: Bryan McConaughy, CoB Lobbyist
Date: July 12, 2017
Special Session Update
The Yd Special Session of the 2017 Legislature is still ongoing at the time of this writing.
Thankfully, legislators agreed to terms on a 2017-19 biennial Operating Budget that was passed
and signed by the Governor late on Friday, June 30. This averted a partial government shutdown
that would have occurred had a budget not been enacted by July 1. Work continues, however, on
several key issues, including a new Capital Budget and potential legislation concerning rural
water rights impairment and mitigation. The Legislature adjourned for the July 4t' holiday, with
work resuming thru July 2& when the 3rd Special Session ends.
2017-2019 Operating Budget — SB 5883
Just hours prior to a government shutdown, the Legislature passed a new Operating Budget for
the 2017-19 fiscal biennium. The budget sets a new high-water mark for the state at roughly
$43.7 billion. This includes approximately $7.3 billion in new state funding for public school.
This new funding comes primarily from a statewide property tax increase of over 80 cents to
$2.70 per $1,000 of assessed value. Additionally, the state exempts itself from the 1% property
tax limit for four years, but does not lift the cap for local governments.
As part of the McCleary education funding requirements, this new state increase will be offset in
many areas by capping local school levies to $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, or $2,500 per
pupil annually, whichever is lower. Much of the central Puget Sound (Seattle, Bellevue, Mercer
Island, etc.) will see a net increase in property taxes over the next four years; however, much of
the rest of the state will see reductions of various sizes.
Tax impact in Bremerton:
2018- $140 increase/2019- $(180) decrease/2020- $(170) decrease/2021- $(170) decrease
Bremerton School District increased revenue:
School District SY 2017-18 SY 2018-19 SY 2019-20 SY 2020-21
Bremerton $2,049,233 $9,563,501 $13,493,260 $14,420,443
Several issues of significance concerning Bremerton are addressed in the Operating Budget.
Below are some of the highlights:
State -shared revenues:
• Traditional state -shared revenues with cities such as liquor and criminal justice assistance
are fully funded for 2017-19. Local government marijuana mitigation revenues are
reduced from $30 million to $12 million for cities and counties in the 2017-19 biennium.
• The budget also provides that if marijuana revenues exceed certain forecasts, local
governments will receive an additional $18 million in the 2017-19 biennium. However, in
all biennia following 2017-19, the budget imposes a $6 million per fiscal year limit on
marijuana distributions.
MainstreetFairness: Internet Sales Tax - Provisions in BB 2186 and SB 5929 help level the
playing field between local brick and mortar businesses and out-of-state internet retailers.
Updating sales tax collections to reflect the growing reliance on internet sales makes sense in
Washington, where sales taxes account for almost 50% of revenues in the State operating budget.
City of Bremerton impacts: FYI - $67k FY19 - $206k FY20 - $257k FY21 - $279k
FY22 - $302k FY23 - $328k =Totaling $1,439,000—estimates provided by WA DOR
Basic Law Enforcement Academy (BLEA): Funding is provided for six additional classes per
year in the operating budget, and eight classes for 2017 in the supplemental budget. The
Bremerton Police department has 2-3 officers that will benefit from this in the coming year.
Housing, homelessness, and human services:
• The budget assumes passage of SB 5254 providing for a four-year extension to 2023 of
the document recording fee at current levels.
• Homelessness funding in the Housing and Essential Needs account is fully funded.
• Funding is provided to implement the Medicaid 1115 waiver for behavioral health and
supportive housing.
Municipal Research and Services Center WC): Fully funded.
LEOFF 2 pension: LEOFF 2 pension state contributions are fully funded.
2017-19 Capital Budget — HB 1075
Prior to adjourning for the holiday weekend, the House passed its updated Capital Budget by a
vote of 92-1. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to take the measure up, in large part due to
ongoing negotiations on issues concerning exempt wells and water impairment/mitigation.
Legislators are expected work on this for the remainder of the special session.
Projects in the updated proposal include:
o Public Works Trust Fund Support — both the House and Senate have budgeted money for
this program and thanks to the city's Public Works Department developing two very
highly regarded projects, funding is included for:
Ostrich Creek Culvert - $4,688,000
Pine Basin Sewer - $3,881,000
o WA Wildlife Recreation Grants — similar to Public Works, thanks to the Parks
Department for having their project in the top 10, it currently would receive funding in
both the Senate and House budget - Manette Park Renovation - $500,000
o Local and Community Projects via Dept of Commerce
Quincy Square on 4th - $250,000 (included in House not in Senate)
Puget Sound Industrial Center Sewer Extension - $515,000 (included in House
not in Senate)
Admiral Theatre - $150,000 (included in House not in Senate)
ARC Community Center Renovation - $81,000 (included in House not in Senate)
Holly Ridge Center Building - $475,000 (included in both House and Senate)
2
Paid Family & Medical Leave — SB 5975
On Friday, June 30, Washington State became the fifth state to pass a paid family and medical
leave program. A long negotiation between business, labor, and key legislators, resulted in a
compromise agreement that passed the Senate 37-12 and the House 65-29 and now awaits the
Governor's signature. The bill includes the following elements:
• Provides paid family leave of up to 12 weeks after the birth or placement of a child or to
care for family member with a serious health condition. Premiums will be paid 100% by
the employee.
• Provides paid medical leave of up to 12 weeks for an employee's serious health
condition. Premiums are split: 55% employer/45% employee.
• Limits combined leave to 16 weeks in a year, plus an additional two weeks if there are
pregnancy complications.
• Requires an employee to work 820 hours in the qualifying period to be eligible and at
least 340 hours for the current employer.
• Specifies a premium of 0.4% of wages beginning on January 1, 2019.
• Wage replacement while on leave is a percentage of the individual's average weekly
wage during the two highest quarters in the qualifying period. The maximum weekly
benefit is $1000 and is adjusted annually to 90% of the State's average weekly wage.
• An employer may opt -out of either the state program for family leave or medical leave, or
both, by having a voluntary plan that meets specified standards. The Department of
Employment Security's (ESD) fee for reviewing each voluntary plan is set at $250.
• ESD administers the program and is granted rulemaking authority.
• The act does not require reopening negotiations of an existing agreement or to apply any
rights or responsibilities until the agreement is reopened or renegotiated or expires.
• Leave taken under the act must be taken concurrently with any leave taken under the
federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
Interim Preview
While this is an off year for state elections, there are some seats that have vacancies that will be
filled in the November 2017 election. Since the Senate has a slim one -vote Republican majority,
focus on the Senate elections will be high with the 45th Legislative District drawing a lot of
attention and money. The 45th Legislative District is located east of Seattle, in the high-tech
suburbs of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Duvall, and Sammamish, and is currently occupied
by Republican Senator Dino Rossi, who is filling out the term of the late Senate Andy Hill. The
Democrats hope to flip the seat to their column, thus regaining control of the Senate, while the
Republicans look to hold the seat and maintain their slim majority. Other races include Senate
seats in the 7th, 31st, 37th and 48"' LDs, and House seats in the 7th, 31st and 48th Districts.
These latter seats are unlikely to alter the party makeup of the Legislature in 2018.
Bremerton Detail Report
Bill Details Status Sou nsor Priority Position
Kitsap comprehensive plan H Rules 3C Appleton Low Neutral
HB 1089 Amending the schedule for updates to the comprehensive plan of Kitsap county.
(Inactive)
Revises the growth management act with regard to the schedule for updates to the comprehensive plan of
Kitsap county.
Excess liquor revenue dist. H Rules R Hayes High Support
SHB 11 13 Liquor Tax Disbursement
(Budget'
Removes the statutory cap on excess liquor revenues and gradually returns the distributions to cities and
counties to the percentage amounts before Initiative Measure No. 1183.
OPMA/IT security matters C 137 L 17 Hudgins Medium Support
Concerning the harmonization of the open public meetings act with the public records act in relation to
information technology security matters.
5HU 1417 Allows a governing body to hold an executive session during a regular or special meeting to consider, if in
compliance with any required data security breach disclosure under RCW 19.255.010 and 42.56.590, and
with legal counsel available, information regarding: (1) Infrastructure and security of computer and
telecommunications networks; (2) Security and service recovery plans; and (3) Security risk assessments
and security test results.
Public records internet site H Approps MacEwen Medium Oppose
Requiring a study of the feasibility of implementing an internet site for public records information.
SHI3 1516 Requires the division of archives and records management in the office of the secretary of state to: (1)
(Inactive) Conduct a study to assess the feasibility of implementing a statewide open records portal through which a
user can request and receive a response through a single internet web site relating to public records
information; (2) Hire a consultant to conduct the study, and (3) Convene a stakeholder group to develop
the initial scope and direction of the study.
Ferry advisory committees H Trans Hayes Medium Support
Concerning ferry advisory committees.
`_. >..`."-'tRequires the transportation commission to: (1) Develop the ferry user data survey only after providing an
(Inactive) opportunity for ferry advisory committees to offer input on survey topical areas and questions; and (2)
(SB Finalize the survey only after providing an opportunity for the ferry advisory committee executive council
5392) to offer input on proposed survey topics and questions. Permits a county legislative authority to establish
and appoint a ferry advisory committee, which may consist of multiple members, for each state ferry
terminal within its boundaries, except Vashon Island and the San Juan Islands which are allowed only one
committee.
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Pagel of 6
HB 1574 Construction contracts H Judiciary Rodne Medium Oppose
(Inactive) Concerning construction contracts.
(SSB
(SSBAddresses certain clauses in construction contracts that purport to waive, release, or extinguish the claim
5788) rights of a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier.
Public records admin. C 303 L 17 McBride Medium Support
Improving public records administration.
Revises the public records act to improve public records administration. Requires training for records
officers and public records officers to address particular issues related to the retention, production, and
disclosure of electronic documents. Requires the attorney general to establish a consultation program to
provide information for developing best practices for local agencies requesting assistance in compliance
with the public records act This program ceases to exist June 30, 2020. Requires the state archivist, until
ESHB June 30, 2020, to offer and provide consultation and training services for local agencies on improving
1594 record retention practices. Requires the division of archives and records management in the office of the
secretary of state to: (1) Establish and administer a competitive grant program for local agencies to
improve certain technology information systems for public records; (2) Conduct a study to assess the
feasibility of implementing a statewide open records portal through which a user can request and receive a
response, relating to public records information, through a single internet web site; and (3) Convene a
stakeholder group to develop the initial scope and direction of the study. Requires the county auditor to
charge a surcharge of one dollar per instrument for every document recorded. Requires the joint legislative
audit and review committee to conduct a review of the attorney general's consultation program, the state
archivist's training services, and the local government competitive grant program. Makes an appropriation
from the general fund to the secretary of state solely for purposes of the study.
Public records request costs C 304 L 17 Nealey Medium Support
Concerning costs associated with responding to public records requests.
EHIB 1595 HB 1595 -DIGEST Revises the public records act with regard to: (1) Requiring statements of actual costs
for photocopies and electronically produced copies to be adopted by the agency only after public notice
and a hearing; (2) Allowing the denial of a bot request; (3) Requiring that a request be for identifiable
records; and (4) Expanding information on agency charges.
Boundary review board action H Local Govt Fitzgibbon High Oppose
Concerning actions by the boundary review board.
Requires the boundary review board to: (1) Direct affected jurisdictions to enter into any agreements
necessary to address conflicts with the board's factors and objectives before ruling on an annexation
HB 1682 proposal; (2) Consider the following factors affecting a proposal: The logical and reasonable nature of the
(Inactive) annexation boundaries to ensure they do not include unincorporated islands, peninsulas, or other
(ESB jurisdictional irregularities; and (3) Attempt to achieve the following: Equity of impacts on jurisdictional
5652) revenues and/or expenses from the proposed annexation boundary.
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Page 2 of 6
Sewer service/growth areas C 305 L 17 Appleton Low Neutral
Addressing sewer service within urban growth areas.
-L - s States that, if a county, city, or utility has adopted a capital facility plan or utilities element to provide sewer
service within the urban growth areas during the twenty-year planning period, nothing in the growth
management act obligates counties, cities, or utilities to install sanitary sewer systems to certain properties
within urban growth areas by the end of the twenty-year planning period.
H13 1764 Property tax revenue limit H Rules R Lytton Medium Support
(Inactive) Replacing the one percent property tax revenue limit with a limit tied to cost drivers.
(SB
(5772) SBEstablishes a new statutory limit on local government property taxes which is responsive to the additional
public demand for service and associated costs.
Legal financial obligations H Rules 3C Holy Monitoring Concerns
E2SHB Concerning legal financial obligations.
1783
(Inactive) Addresses legal financial obligations. Eliminates the accrual of interest on certain nonrestitution portions
of legal financial obligations. Prohibits a court from imposing costs on a defendant who is indigent at the
time of sentencing. Provides that this act is null and void if appropriations are not approved.
License plate recognition H Rules R Appleton Medium Concerns
Authorizing the use of automated license plate recognition systems.
Authorizes the following to use an automated license plate recognition system: (1) A law enforcement
agency or parking enforcement agency for locating vehicles on a watch list, (2) A parking enforcement
agency for enforcing time restrictions on parking spaces; (3) A transportation agency for providing real
(Inactive) time traffic information to the public, traffic modeling purposes, and traffic studies such as origin and
destination studies, ramp meter efficiencies, and determining construction delays and route use; (4) A
transportation agency for commercial vehicle systems at Washington state patrol enforcement sites and
weigh stations; and (5) An agency for controlling access to secured areas. Allows an automated license
plate recognition system to be used as a component of a photo toll system or an automated traffic safety
camera.
11B 1921 Telecommunications services H Tech & Econ De Morris Medium Concerns
(Inactive) Concerning telecommunications services. 5g
(SB
5711) Revises telecommunications services provisions.
OPMA/subgroups H State Govt, Ele Harmsworth Low Oppose
RB 1948 Concerning open meetings of subgroups of a public agency governing body.
(Inactive)
Requiring more notification for sub committee meetings at the city level.
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Page 3 of 6
OPMA/advisory boards H State Govt, Ele Pollet Monitoring Concerns
Applying the open public meetings act to advisory boards and committees that provide formal advice or
HO 1989 recommendations to their governing bodies.
(Inactive)
Subjects the following to the requirements of the open public meetings act: An advisory board, committee,
or other entity established by a public agency to provide formal advice or recommendations to the agency.
Local infra. investment prg H Finance Steele Monitoring Support
Creating a local infrastructure investment program to support the development of affordable housing,
workforce housing, and revitalization efforts.
HB 2046 Authorizes a participating local jurisdiction, that builds approved local infrastructure to support the
(Inactive)
development of affordable housing or workforce housing or revitalization efforts within a revitalization
district, to receive a remittance that is the equivalent of a 4.37 percent sales or use tax on the construction
of the local infrastructure. Requires the city or county to notify the department of revenue that a local
infrastructure investment program has been established.
Residential real property H Rules 3C Orwall Low Support
Concerning the services and processes available when residential real property is abandoned or in
foreclosure.
Allows a certificate of abandonment to be obtained for a fee through the housing finance commission by
(Inactive) using a form and subject to the terms and conditions developed by the housing finance commission in
(ESSB conjunction with the servicing industry, trustees, and civil legal aid. Requires the housing finance
5797) commission to: (1) Determine the costs associated with the application process and set a reasonable
application fee based upon these costs; and (2) Notify the appropriate city, town, or county upon certificate
issuance or upon receipt of notification from a servicer. Increases the fee for a beneficiary on whose behalf
a notice of trustee's sale has been recorded on residential real property and requires the fee to be remitted
to the county auditor or recording officer instead of the department of commerce.
Marijuana revenue/local gov. H Approps Condotta Medium Neutral
HB 2076 Increasing marijuana revenue distributed to local jurisdictions.
(Budget)
Increases the amount of money distributed to counties, cities, and towns from the dedicated marijuana
account.
Trafficking, etc/time limits C 231 L 17 Darneille Low Support
4 LConcerning human trafficking, prostitution, and commercial sexual abuse of a minor.
(EHB
1078) Addresses the statute of limitations for trafficking, commercial sexual abuse of a minor, and promoting
commercial sexual abuse of a minor.
ESSB
5038
(Inactive)
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Page 4 of 6
Incentivized evidence discl. S 3rd Reading Padden Medium Concerns
Concerning disclosures regarding incentivized evidence and testimony.
(HB SB 5038-S -DIGEST Requires the state, before it introduces any testimony or statement of an informant in a
1390) trial or other criminal proceeding, to: (1) Request material and information from the investigative agency,
and (2) Disclose to the defendant the results of that request and other material and information that is
known by the state or reasonably available to be discovered by the state.
SSB 5073
(Inactive)
(HB
1529)
(Inactive)
(HB
1392)
Use of deadly force S Ways & Means Frockt Medium Neutral
Concerning recommendations from the joint legislative task force on the use of deadly force in community
policing.
Responds to the recommendations considered by the joint legislative task force on the use of deadly force
in community policing on the following subject matter: The state deadly force statute; training and
community outreach; law enforcement accountability to its community; data collection; behavioral health;
less lethal weapons; and funding and oversight. Provides that this act is null and void if appropriations are
not approved.
Public works board projects S Ways & Means Rivers High Support
Concerning authorization for projects and appropriating funds recommended by the public works board.
Addresses project loans recommended by the public works board.
Ferry advisory committees S Rules X Rolfes
Medium Support
Concerning ferry advisory committees.
SB53. 2 Requires the transportation commission to: (1) Develop the ferry user data survey only after providing an
(Inactive) opportunity for ferry advisory committees to offer input on survey topical areas and questions; and (2)
(HB Finalize the survey only after providing an opportunity for the ferry advisory committee executive council
1528) to offer input on proposed survey topics and questions. Permits a county legislative authority to establish
and appoint a ferry advisory committee, which may consist of multiple members, for each state ferry
terminal within its boundaries, except Vashon Island and the San Juan Islands which are allowed only one
committee.
Boundary review board action S Rules 3 Angel High Oppose
Concerning actions by the boundary review board.
ESB 552
(Inactive) SB 5652 - DIGEST Requires the boundary review board to: (1) Direct affected jurisdictions to enter into any
(HB agreements necessary to address conflicts with the board's factors and objectives before ruling on an
1682) annexation proposal; (2) Consider the following factors affecting a proposal: The logical and reasonable
nature of the annexation boundaries to ensure they do not include unincorporated islands, peninsulas, or
other jurisdictional irregularities; and (3) Attempt to achieve the following: Equity of impacts on
jurisdictional revenues and/or expenses from the proposed annexation boundary.
Telecommunications services S Rules Ericksen Medium Concerns
Concerning telecommunications services.
(Inactive)
(HB Revises telecommunications services provisions.
1921)
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Page 5 of 6
Municipal gen. business lic. S Rules 3 Brown Low Support
Improving the business climate in this state by simplifying the administration of municipal general
business licenses.
Requires a city, that requires a general business license of a person that engages in business activities
within that city, to partner with the department of revenue to have the license issued, and renewed if the
city requires renewal, through the business licensing service. Requires the department of revenue to phase
in the issuance and renewal of general business licenses of cities that required a general business license as
of July 1, 2017, and by December 31, 2022, if specific funding is appropriated by June 30, 2017, in the
(Inactive) omnibus appropriations act. Authorizes a city that imposes a general business license requirement and
does not partner with the department of revenue as of January 1, 2018, to continue to issue and renew its
general business licenses until the city partners with the department. Authorizes the department of
revenue to delay assuming the duties of issuing and renewing general business licenses beyond the dates
provided if certain conditions are met. Requires cities, working through the association of Washington
cities, to form a model ordinance development committee made up of a representative sampling of cities
that impose a general business license requirement Creates the local business and occupation tax
apportionment task force to seek input or collaborate with other parties as it deems necessary.
Residential real property S Rules 3 Mullet Support
is S S iConcerning the services and processes available when residential real property is abandoned or in
foreclosure.
.5797
(Inactive)
(ESHB SB 5797-S - DIGEST Addresses residential real property provisions regarding the services and processes
2057) that are available when the property is abandoned or in foreclosure. Requires the housing finance
commission to create a process by which entities, such as services, may apply to obtain a certificate of
abandonment for properties that meet the definition of abandoned.
Lodging tax revenues S Rules X Braun Monitoring Concerns
SSB 5827 Concerning definitions and reporting requirements for municipalities receiving lodging tax revenues.
(Inactive) Addresses lodging tax revenue provisions regarding the addition of the definition of "tourist" and reporting
requirements for municipalities that receive the revenue.
Behavioral health system S 3rd Reading O'Ban Monitoring Concerns
Concerning behavioral health system reform.
ESSE
5894 Works to transitioning state managed mental health care to more of a community mental health care
(Inactive) model. Concerns about specific section of the bill - if misdemeanor criminal is viewed as not capable of
standing trial - the person would just walk. The bill as its drafted has a lot of good intentions but a lot of
cost
Detail Report
July 12, 2017
Page 6 of 6
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON ��
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Bremerton Kitsap Access Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
Television Succession Plan Presenter: Char Burnette
Phone: (360) 473-5011
SUMMARY: The current BKAT Public Access Manager is retiring at the end of 2017. A succession
plan has been developed to keep BKAT viable and successful moving forward. The plan includes
using current staff in new roles and hiring a producer for the City and County productions that BKAT
is responsible for.
HANDOUTS: None
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation
Form Created 5/4/15
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Purchase of 12.5% Bulk Sodium
Hypochlorite Solution from JCI Jones, Inc.
for the Westside Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 19. 2017
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
PW&U/WWTP
Pat Coxon
360-473-5448
SUMMARY: Four proposals were received in response to a request from the City for furnishing
12.5% bulk sodium hypochlorite to the Westside WWTP. JCI Jones INC., Tacoma, WA submitted the
lowest responsive proposal at $0.80/gallon delivered, which includes freight and taxes. This award
to the supplier will have firm pricing for a period of one year, from the time the proposal agreement is
signed.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Sodium Hypochlorite proposals from HASA Inc., JCI Jones Chemicals Inc.,
Northstar Chemical, and Univar BCS.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This purchase is budgeted through the WWTP
Operating Supplies budget of $550,000.00.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: x❑ No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the proposal to purchase bulk 12.5% sodium
hypochlorite solution for a period of one year from JCI Jones INC at a cost of $0.80 per gallon
delivered and authorize the Wastewater Manager to make these purchases on an as needed basis.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve
Form Updated 01/07/15
❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Chemical Proposals for the City of Bremerton — 2017
Sodium Hypochlorite: Cost Per/Gal. Delivered
I. HASA INC. = $ 0.878 (MIN. 4,700 GAL. DELIVERY) / LOW SALT DELIVERY = $ 0.898 (MIN. 4700
GAL. DELIVERY)
2. NORTHSTAR CHEMICALS INC. = $1.320 (>2,000 GAL. DELIVERY) $2.080 (< 2,000 GAL. DELIVERY)
/LOW SALT DELIVERY = $1.430 (>2,000 GAL. DELIVERY) $3.550 (<2,000 GAL. DELIVERY)
3. JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC. = $0.800 (4800 GAL. DELIVERY)
4. TWO RIVERS = N/A
5. UNIVAR BCS = $1.079 (4500 GAL. DELIVERY) $2.060 (< 1001 GAL. DELIVERY)
Sodium Hydroxide: Cost Per/Gal. Delivered
1. HASA INC. = $ N/A
2. NORTHSTAR CHEMICALS INC. = $2.660 (>2,000 GAL. DELIVERY) $3.530 (< 2,000 GAL. DELIVERY)
3. JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC. = $2.970 (1000 GAL. DELIVERY)
4. TWO RIVERS = N/A
5. UNIVAR BCS = $2.539 ( 4,000 GAL. DELIVERY) $ 3.073 ( 250 GAL. DELIVERY)
Sodium Bi Sulfite: Cost Per/Gal. Delivered
1. HASA INC. = $ N/A
2. NORTHSTAR CHEMICALS INC. = $2.110 (1500 GAL. DELIVERY)
3. JCI JONES CHEMICAL INC. = $
4. TWO RIVERS = $2.45 (1500 GAL. DELIVERY)
5. Univar BCS = $2.812 (3500 GAL. DELIVERY)
From: Patric Coxon
Sent: Monday, 3uly 10, 2017 6:17 AM
To: Hillary Hamilton
Subject: FW: 2017 Chemical Proposals for City of Bremerton WWTP - JCI Jones Proposal
Importance: High
Good Morning Hillary,
Amanda from Legal had sent an email to me saying I should include the actual low
proposal for the Hypochlorite agenda bill. Below is the submitted proposal. Could you load
this onto agenda pal or is it too late? Please let me know. Thanks.
Patric J Coxon
Wastewater/Forestry Manager
Public Works & Utilities
City of Bremerton
360.473.5448
From: Michelle Trammell[mailto:mtrammell(d)jcichem.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:57 PM
To: Larry Willman
Cc: James Groh; Patric Coxon
Subject: 2017 Chemical Proposals for City of Bremerton WWTP - JCI Jones Proposal
Importance: High
Hello Larry,
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. is pleased to bid the following for 2017 Chemical Proposals for the City of
Bremerton WWTP:
12.5% SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE (4800 gal/Delivery): $0.80/gal
50% MEMBRANE CAUSTIC SODA (1000 gal/Delivery): $2.97/gal
Both prices include sales tax, freight and any hazardous fees.
Please note that these bid prices are for the Wastewater Location ONLY at 1600 Oyster Bay Ave. S.,
Bremerton, WA 98312.
Let me know if you have any questions.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Bremerton.
Please confirm receipt of email.
Thank You,
Tra*"*"t�k
Office Manager & Sales Coordinator
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc.
1919 Marine View Drive
Tacoma, WA 98422
(253) 274 - 0104/ph
(253) 274-0733/fax
mtrammell(@icichem.com
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. to amend
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 11.08
entitled "Sidewalk and Street Frontage"
Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 19. 2017
Department: PW&U
Presenter: Tom Knuckey
Phone: 360-473-2376
SUMMARY: The proposed revisions to the Bremerton Municipal Code allow the Director of Public
Works and Utilities to enter into agreements with property owners to complete repairs to sidewalks,
curb and gutter, curb ramps and driveway approaches that abut private property. These agreements
are intended to allow the City to partner with property owners and share the cost of repairs when the
City has determined pedestrian facilities abutting a property are hazardous or defective and require
repair or replacement. Other changes to BMC 11.08 clarify existing language.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Revenue to fund expenditures resulting from the
cost share agreements will be from the Sidewalk Abatement Fund
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑x No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. to amend Chapter 11.08 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled Sidewalk and Street Frontage.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve
Form Updated 01/07/15
❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 11.08 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sidewalks and Street
Frontage."
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 11.08 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled "Sidewalks and Street Frontage" in order to simplify the language,
address the need for ADA compliance, and allow the Public Works Director to enter into
agreements with property owners to make sidewalk repairs; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]. Chapter 11.08 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Sidewalks and Street Frontage" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 11.08
SIDEWALK AND STREET FRONTAGE
11.08.010 PURPOSE.
This chapter further defines the requirements and procedures to maintain sidewalks and
other street frontage improvements as outlined in Chapters 35.68 and 35.69 RCW, said ,.i aptefs
which are adopted by
reference as currently enacted and as hereafter amended.
11.08.015 DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions apply to this chapter.
(a) "Sidewalk" means any and all pedestrian structures or forms of improvement for
pedestrians included in the space between the street margin, as defined by a curb or the edge of
the traveled road surface, and the line where the public right-of-wav meets the abutting property,
as set forth in RCW 35.69.010. The term "sidewalk" includes but is not limited to curbs, gutters,
and portions of driveways that cross sidewalks.
(b) "Driveway," where set forth separately from "sidewalk" in this chapter, means all
portions of a driveway crossing City right-of-way.
11.08.020 RESPONSIBILITIES.
Street frontage must be maintained in accordance with City standards. Permits may be
required to undertake the work required in this chapter.
11.08.030 SIDEWALK AND STREET FRONTAGE MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS.
(a) It shall be the duty of every owner of of property abutting on public right-
of-way to keep sidewalks free of snow, ice, garbage cans, and all other obstructions. of etke�
Sidewalk & Street Frontage
objeetiona.le thing. It shall be unlawful f the ow-nef of lesseeeee"yingh.,.,ing "h.,,-ge
> ef alley,
p4lie sidewalk afea i +ho r;+., to construct, place, cause, create, maintain, or permit to remain
upon any sidewalk any condition that constitutes a hazard,
hazafdotis to the normal use of said sidewalk by the membefs ofthegone,..,' public. -Facilities
which have a poor appearance but are otherwise physically sound shall not be considered
hazardous. ineittding, h„t not lifnitea t the following " ,,,bons.
� stub arro��; ,,,� . ,;phior- between sidewalk
0 0„sutoes,joints;
ever-jttaetur-e between said eement stwiPaees and said p4lie sidewalks, ineittdifig stub toes OF
depfessiefis at said j
)n of any stteh street right of way;
h ,.,,hl;e sidewalks o rights .,f .. ay;
the fight of way betweeii the ettfb litie of:, if thefe is tie eeA litie, then betweeii the ad aeeiit edge
lifnited te, gr-avel, eil, gfease, E)r- any ether- f4eign sttbjeet matter- that ea-uses pedest --9
,
adjaeefit to said fight of way;
O Sidewalks in violation of current Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
accessibility guidelines„ and/or sidewalks with one or more missing sections including
v�f sidewalk
-vbe
�senstiu6t€d. W}ewe—crportions of any street
missing sidewalk along the entire frontage , it shall be
corrected t by of-the abutting property owner_ to eemplete the sidewalk, ettr-b and gt4ter-.
or- are entitled to eee"y and make general ttse of property.-
bttildings, the tefm "pe . ng pr-eper-�y" shall fnean that per-son of: per-sons &A%mg of: in
(2) In the ease of eft. ee h„;ldings .atTlexes and other— property eee"ied by
"Ose Pfe --- —4he sidewalk level and they shall be fespetisible fef so mtteh of the
sidewalk ., is .,,1;. eent to their-
11.08.040 ENFORCEMENT - NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
(a) Upon finding that an owner ^4�is maintaining or allowing a condition
prohibited in this chapter, the City Code Enforcement Officer or City Engineer may order the
repair, reconstruction, replacement, cleaning, removal, or remedy of the condition or obstruction.
Sidewalk & Street Frontage
(b) Enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.04 BMC may be used in lieu of or in
conjunction with the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Notice of the violation and required corrective action shall be sent to the legal
owner of the abutting property, pursuant to BMC 1.04.040 or RCW 35.68.030 or 35.69.030, as
applicable, to repair or replace the sidewalk_ of eurb, andlef,elate apptiftenane
11.08.050 PERMIT REQUIRED - APPLICATION - ASSESSMENT - LIEN.
(a) Upon notification, the owner; aaeri*, o f lessee shall obtain a permit from the City
to correct the sidewalk deficiency. No person, firm or corporation shall construct or reconstruct
any esidewalk or driveway on public rights-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the
City. After sixty (60) calendar days, if the owner, agent, of lessee has not applied for a permit to
correct the sidewalk deficiency, the City Council may, following a public hearing, assess a lien
on the property for the expense of correcting the deficiency pursuant to BMC 11.08.080.
(b) In the event the owner, agent, ef lessee obtains a permit within the time prescribed
above, but the corrections are not completed within two hundred forty (240) calendar days of
receiving the permit, the City Council may, following a public hearing, assess a lien on the
property for the expense of correcting the deficiency.
11.08.060 DRIVEWAYS.
(a) Upon receipt of an application and payment of all fees, the City may issue a
permit to construct a driveway meeting City standards. The City Engineer may revoke any
driveway permit or require a modification of any driveway if:
(1) The area occupied by the driveway is needed for the public convenience;
(2) Continued operation of the driveway interferes with the safe and orderly
flow of pedestrians, bicycles or vehicular traffic;
(3) The abutting owner has failed to comply with all specifications and
conditions of the permit;
(4) The driveway does not access legal parking and maneuvering space on
abutting property; or
(5) The driveway does not meet current ADA accessibility guidelines.
(b) Within sixty (60) calendar days of written notice from the City Engineer to close
or modify a driveway, the abutting property owner shall obtain any required permits and make
the corrections. It the abutting owner fails to make the required corrections within sixty (60)
calendar days, the City may perform the required work at the expense of the abutting owner and
assessment the costs as provided in this chapter.
11.08.070 CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR -
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY - LIABILITY OF ABUTTING PROPERTY.
(a) Whenever a portion of any street in any city is not improved by the construction
of a sidewalk thereon, or the sidewalk thereon is has beeeme „rf;t of t1„safehazardous for
purposes of public travel and the City Council by resolution, pursuant to Chapter 35.68 or 35.69
RCW as applicable, finds that the improvement of such portion of such street by the
construction, or -reconstruction or repair of a sidewalk thereon is necessary for the public safety
and convenience, the duty, burden, and expense of such work
sidewal shall devolve upon the property directly abutting upon such portion except as provided
in subsections (b) and (c) of this section pursuant to RCW 35.69.020.
Sidewalk & Street Frontage
(b) An abutting property shall not be charged with any costs of ,.enstftietio e
efistf+ efi f under this chapter in excess of fifty (50) percent of the valuation of such abutting
property, exclusive of improvements thereon, according to the valuation last placed upon it for
purposes of general taxation.
(c) An abutting property shall not be charged with any costs of eenstpdefien Er
Efistf+ e6f)i under this chapter if the construction, reconstruction or repair is required to
correct deterioration of or damage to the sidewalk that is the direct result of actions by the City
or its agents or to correct deterioration of or damage to the sidewalk that is the direct result of the
failure of the City to enforce its ordinances.
11.08.080 ASSESSMENT OF LIENS.
The City Council may, following a public hearing, assess a lien on the property for the
cost and expense of construction, reconstruction, and/or correcting the deficiency as authorized
and pursuant to Chapter 35.68 or 35.69 RCW as applicable.
11.08.090 SIDEWALK ABATEMENT FUND CREATED.
The sidewalk abatement fund is hereby created. The sidewalk abatement fund shall
receive revenue from proceeds of lien settlements as outlined in BMC 11.08.080, and other
revenue. All funds deposited into the sidewalk abatement fund shall be used solely for correcting
deficiencies in sidewalks .
11.08.095 REPAIRS PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT.
(1) The Director of Public Works and Utilities is authorized to enter into agreements
with owners of abuttingpropertyfor the repair of any sidewalk determined to be defective or
hazardous. The agreement shall be written, shall include a cost estimate, and shall define the
extent of costs, if any, to be contributed by the City.
(2) The City may participate in sidewalk repair, if there are available funds in the
Sidewalk Abatement Fund, only where there is no indication of negligence or misuse by the
property owner, past or present, causing the defect.
11.08.100 COSTS.
Whenever any construction, reconstruction or repair of any sidewalk is to be done, the
costs of the same may be paid as follows:
(1) The abutting owner may construct the correction or improvement at hi ief: ,..�,r
,.,,�expense using a private contractor after obtaining a City permit. The cost will either be
wholly at the owner's expense, or with contribution from the City if an agreement pursuant to
BMC 11.08.095 is in place;
(2) The abutting owner may request the City construct the correction or improvement
and reimburse the City directly; or
(3) The City may construct the improvement and assess the costs thereof against the
abutting property owner.
11.08.110 VIOLATION - PENALTY.
I
Sidewalk & Street Frontage
(a) Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under
Chapter 1.04 BMC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement and/or
enforcement may be required as provided therein.
(b) In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or
by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 BMC. Each day, or a portion thereof, during which a violation occurs
shall constitute a separate violation.
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 )2017.
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this day of )2017.
ATTEST:
PATTY LENT, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of )2017.
EFFECTIVE the day of )2017.
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works & Utilities\SIDEWALK BMC 11.08 - 6.15.17.docx
5
Sidewalk & Street Frontage
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
G3�?
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. to amend Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 13.04.140 COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 19, 2017
entitled "Liquor" under the Park Code Department: PW&U
Presenter: Milenka Hawkins
Phone: 360-473-5333
SUMMARY: The proposed revisions to the Bremerton Municipal Code outline the changes
requested to allow liquor for private events within the boundaries of Otto Jarstad Park.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. amending Chapter 13.04.140 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled Liquor under the Park Code.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny
Form Updated 01/07/15
❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 13.04.140 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code relating to liquor in City Parks.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 13.04.14 entitled
"Liquor" under the Park Code relating to alcohol within Otto Jarstad Park; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]. Section 13.04.140 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Liquor" under the Park Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
13.04.140 LIQUOR.
It is unlawful to serve or consume, within any City park, any liquor as defined in RCW
66.04.010(25), as enacted and hereinafter amended, except the service and consumption of liquor
is authorized in the following circumstances:
(a) Harborside Fountain Park and Louis Mentor Boardwalk. Within the boundaries of
the Harborside Fountain Park and the Louis Mentor Boardwalk when:
(1) Permitted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board; and
(2) Such service of liquor is administered by the operator of the Kitsap
Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside; or
(3) The service of liquor is administered during an event or activity which is:
(i) licensed by the City as a special event pursuant to Chapter 5.36 BMC, or (ii) authorized bjthe
City Council upon terms and conditions as established by the City Councilptt ^N*��
agfeemefft appfeNed by City Gotta , and (iii) such service and consumption of liquor is limited
to beer and wine.
(b) Pendergast Regional Park - Indoor Soccer Center. Within the mezzanine food
service area of the Olympic Soccer and Sports Center ("Indoor Soccer Center") located within
Pendergast Regional Park when:
(1) Permitted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board;
(2) Such service of liquor is administered by the operator of the Indoor Soccer
Center; and
(3) Such service and consumption is limited to beer and wine.
(c) Eastpark - Bremerton Ice Arena. Within the building of the Bremerton Ice Arena
facility ("Ice Arena") located within Eastpark when:
(1) Permitted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board;
(2) Such service of liquor is administered by the operator of the Ice Arena;
(3) Such service and consumption is limited to beer and wine;
(4) Such service and consumption, when in the viewing stands area, is limited
to private funetionsevents, not public events; however, service and consumption of liquor are
prohibited on the field of play; and
Otto Jarstad Park - Liquor
(5) Required approval has been granted by the National Parks Service, on
behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the deed conveying the property to the City.
(d) Evergreen Rotary Park. Sampling of beer and wine and sales of beer and wine
within the boundaries of a farmer's market licensed or permitted area located within Evergreen
Rotary Park when:
(1) Permitted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board;
(2) Authorized by the City Council upon terms and conditions as established
by the City Council; and
(3) Such services comply with the requirements of RCW 66.24.170,
66.24.175, 66.24.240, and 66.24.244 and other related statutory or regulatory requirements, as
currently enacted or hereinafter amended; and
(4) The sampling area is located within a forty-eight (48) inch high barrier or
other designated booth or stall, the location and aesthetics of which are subject to approval by the
Director of Parks and Recreation.
(e) Otto Jarstad Park, which is City utilily property maintained by the Department of
Public Works and Utilities. Within the boundaries of Otto Jarstad Park when:
(1) Permitted by the Washington State Liquor Control Board, and
(2) Such service and consumption of liquor is limited to beer and wine, and
(3) Permitted by the City's Director of Public Works and Utilities, or designee
as a private, not a public event, subject to terms and conditions as established by the Director, or
(4) The service of liquor is administered during an event or activity which is:
(i) licensed by the Cit.. a�pecial event pursuant to Chapter 5.36 BMC, or (ii) authorized by the
City Council upon terms and conditions as established by the City Council.
For purposes of this section, Section 13.04.140, the authorized service and
consumption of liquor includes any related sale of liquor. Private event means events, such as
weddings and birthday parties, authorized for use of specific space within a park by private
groups pursuant to a permit or rental agreement,
SECTION2. 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 )2017.
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this day of , 2017
2
Otto Jarstad Park - Liquor
ATTEST:
PATTY LENT, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of , 2017
EFFECTIVE the day of , 2017
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Parks\BMC 13.04.140 Liquor - updated 07.6.17.doc
Otto Jarstad Park - Liquor
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution
No. to amend Department of
Financial Services — Rate Table A
Study Session Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
July 12, 2017
July 19, 2017
Financial Services
Corin/Riley
(360) 473-5323
SUMMARY: The State Legislature passed Engrossed House Bill 1595 amending the Public Records
Act (RCW 42.56). It requires an agency to establish a statement of costs after notice and a public
hearing. Additionally, the bill defines the maximum costs an agency may charge for providing public
records.
The bill is effective July 23, 2017. To be able to charge the maximum costs after this date, the City
Council must hold a public hearing and adopt the new costs.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: x❑ No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
S TUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business 0 Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution No
to fees for public records.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve
Form Updated 01/07/15
to amend Department of Financial Services — Rate Table A, relating
❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Department of Financial
Services — Rate Table A, relating to fees for public records.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by this resolution, desires to amend the rates and
fees established for Financial Services — Rate Table A in Resolution No. 3280; and
WHEREAS, Engrossed House Bill 1595 amends RCW 42.56.070(7) that an
agency may establish a statement of costs adopted by an agency only after providing notice and
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice on July 5, 2017, for a Public Hearing to be
held on July 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, Engrossed House Bill 1595 amends RCW 42.56.120(2)(b) providing
for an agency need not calculate the actual costs it charges for providing public records if it has
rules or regulations declaring the reasons doing so would be unduly burdensome; and
WHEREAS, the City is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington which
provides general municipal and utility services to its residents and others; and
WHEREAS, the magnitude and diversity of the seven (7) City departments with
an even greater number of divisions/subdivisions, has resulted in the creation and use of many
different computer systems, programs and information retaining systems of which copying,
printing or scanning the records is performed by a wide range of employees with a wide range of
equipment, including maintenance and supplies, to perform such duties that calculating actual
costs for providing such records would be extremely difficult and unduly burdensome; and
WHEREAS, the City's operations do not allow for the addition, revision or
reassignment of duties of existing personnel so that an actual cost calculation can be formulated;
and
WHEREAS, the City has a longstanding and recognized policy of charging the
maximum allowed under RCW 42.56.120; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth above in this
resolution are hereby incorporated and adopted herein as if fully set forth herein.
2017 Rates and Fees —
Rate Table A Amendment
SECTION 2. Rate Table Amended. Rates and fees for services relating to the
Department of Financial Services — Rate Table A, as established by Resolution No. 3280, are
hereby amended herein by this resolution as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. Effective Date of Section 2. The amendments to the Department of
Financial Services — Rate Table A as set forth in Section 2 above shall be effective July 23,
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
upon passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of
)2017.
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Finance\Resolution Amending Rate Table A.doc
2
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
2017 Rates and Fees —
Rate Table A Amendment
EXHIBITA
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
RATE
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
Copy or Print Pei��- 8'/z x 11, 8'/z x 14 and 11 x 17 paper size (No $0.15/pg
fee for first 50 pages)
Scan — 8% x 11. 8% x 14 and 11 x 17 paper size (No fee for first 50 pages) $0.10/pg
Electronic Files or Attachment uploaded to email, cloud -based data $0.05/each 4 files
storage service or other means of electronic delivery uploaded
Resolution No.
EXHIBITA
FINANCIAL SERVICES — RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees
4. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES
(Including scanning to Electronic Formad
Transmission of Public Records in an Electronic Format
Video Reproduction
CD/DVD
USB 2 GB
Postage or Delivery Charges
Certification
Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos, Drawings, and Maps (Black and
White)
Color GIS Plotted Maps
$0.10/GB
Actual Costs
including personnel time
$2.00
$5.00
Actual Costs
$5.00
$8/pg
or Actual Costs when performed
by a Vendor
$5/sq. ft.
In addition to the above fees, each department may establish fees for records that do not tall into one of the above categories.
0*hWcVzW nmtendthe City Clerk shall have the departments fee schedule available for inspection upon request.
Medical Records Fees shall be pursuant to RCW
70.02.010(12)
5. CHECK HANDLING FEE
aU
$40
5
(Hard Copy)
$50
6. ANIMA1gM 1 FK0iP'F*ES
$10
Annual Report
Licenses for I](&"F34ts
$25
For Eac#ECeatrSoayVdrsiiDiNeutered
$10
(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.
EXHIBITA
FINANCIAL SERVICES — RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees
Impound and Redemption Fees - Domestic Animals
Impound
Vaccination
Boarding (per day)
Medical care
Microchip
Impound and Redemption Fees - Livestock
Impound
Boarding (per day)
Medical care
Special Transportation fee
$45
45
20
Case dependent
$30
$60
$40
Case dependent
$120
Resolution No.
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Update on the Puget Sound
Regional Council's "Regional Centers
Framework"
C1
Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
Presenter: Allison Satter
Phone: 360-473-5845
SUMMARY: The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is working with its members and other
partners to evaluate the regional centers framework and options for structural changes to better
recognize different types and scales of centers throughout the region using consistent designation
criteria and procedures. This work will impact jurisdictions in Kitsap, King, Snohomish and Pierce
counties. Kitsap County has three centers: Bremerton Downtown is a "Metropolitan Center", Puget
Sound Industrial Center -Bremerton is a "Manufacturing Industrial Center" (MIC) and Silverdale is a
"Regional Center".
Centers play a big role in how the region accommodates growth. The Regional Centers Framework
is how the region focuses and supports growth while creating vibrant, livable communities. This
centers framework update will:
• Clearly define the types of central places—both larger and smaller—within the region that are
the focus of growth, planning, and investment.
• Provide for designation of centers at the regional and countywide levels in a way that is
consistent across the region.
• Establish planning expectations that ensure centers are developing as thriving, equitable, and
connected communities.
An updated framework and set of designated centers will put the region on a sound footing as it
updates VISION 2040 (the multi -countywide regional planning strategy) to accommodate housing
and jobs in walkable mixed-use communities, preserve industrial lands, and achieve an
environmentally sustainable pattern of development.
The PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB) is currently weighing options for how to
update the centers framework. Councilman Wheeler is an active member of the GMPB. A staff -level
stakeholder working group, composed of 21 members representing jurisdictions throughout the
region, developed a report with options for the GMPB to consider. City's DCD Staff was a
stakeholder throughout the working group's meetings. It is important that the City maintain our two
centers classifications through this framework update. Center designations is important because
historically status as a center has often ensured that the City receives important transportation
funding from PSRC.
This update includes multiple potential alternatives on how to classify a center and policy decisions
that will impact the City's centers. Staff will present a summary of those potential alternatives and
revisions and their impacts to the City.
HANDOUTS: No handouts provided, but Staff will be summarizing the PSRC's Stakeholders
Working Group's Report which is hyperlinked above or can be located here:
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/centers-swq-final-report.pdf
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Form Created 5/4/15
❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance
No. to amend Bremerton Municipal
Code (BMC) Section 20.46.010 regarding
"Accessory Dwelling Units"
C2
Study Session Date: July 12, 2017
COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 19. 2017
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
DCD
Allison Satter
360.473.5285
SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance
amending BMC Title 20 as follows: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Revise the regulations to
remove the owner -occupancy requirement, add additional design standards, and revise the allowed
unit size.
This Zoning Code amendment was publicized for the June 21, 2017 Zoning Code Amendments
Public Hearing, however as additional information was requested by City Council, an additional
ordinance has been provided for this Public Hearing. No public testimony regarding ADUs was
receive on the June 21, 2017's Public Hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance No.
Exhibit A — Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions
B. Staff Memo, including Planning Commission's Minutes for the workshop on April 18, 2017,
and public hearing on May 16, 2017.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business 0 Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No.
Code Section 20.46.010 regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table
Form Updated 01/07/15
to amend Bremerton Municipal
❑ Continue ❑ No Action
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code
Section 20.46.010 titled "Accessory Dwelling Units."
WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need
for modification has been identified; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton ("City") 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 April 18, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop
on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2017, a State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA")
Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") was issued for the proposed action and no appeals
were filed; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017, the proposed Zoning Code amendments were
circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2017, 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 May 16, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the
amendments for City Council consideration; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2017, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in
the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing on June
21, 2017 by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2017, City Council removed this specific topic of ADUs
from the Zoning Code proposed amendments ordinance to make this topic a separate ordinance
and it was made clear at the June 21, 2017 Public Hearing that this item was removed and
rescheduled for July 19, 2017, but testimony would be considered if provided. No public
testimony was received at the June 21, 2017's Public Hearing regarding ADUs; and
Title 20 BMC Updates
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2017, 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 on July 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2017, 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. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set
forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings. 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. Chapter 20.46 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Special
Development Standards" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.46.0 10 to read as follows:
20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be installed -permitted where a new or existing
single-family dwelling unit (hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are
exempt from density requirements and shall be subject to the following specific development,
and design and ow-nef eeetipaney standards:
(a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for
the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage or BMC 20.44.060: Accessory
Structures Setbacks for detached ADUs.
(b) An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit.
(c) Only one (1) ADU may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1)
single-family dwelling unit and one (1) ADU.
(d) Manufactured homes may be allowed as an accessory dwelling unit provided it
complies with the design criteria of ADUs and must comply with BMC 20.46.040 Manufactured
Home provisions, excluding subsection 20.46.040(a)(2) and (6) regarding size and roof pitch.
„ths ett' o f the .
(e) An ADU shall be subordinate to the principal unit. The ADU shall be limited to
not more than sixty (60) percent of the principal unit's total habitable floor area with the
following exception:
(1) To encourage the compact infill development and use of existing single-
family homes, if a residence that was constructed or remodeled prior to January 1, 2017 is
proposed to be divided into a principal unit and an ADU, the Director may allow equal square
footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of
the existing residence. This does not apply to detached ADUs.
2
Title 20 BMC Updates
I
. ...... .......
(300) S o feet
(f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of
a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods
through careful design. Unless the ADU is limited to onlv interior remodelinsi of an existiniz
single-family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards. ;nest ding
fellewiligi
(1) Genst..detea of similar- (nate,-ials and siding as the pr - pal , ai4 Exterior
Finish: The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and
appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or
characteristics of the neighborhood.
(i) Roofing: A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit.
(ii) Eaves: The minimum projection is twelve (12) inches.
(2) n roof o f eq al orgreater- p teh as t
(3) A height tie more than twetity five (25) per-eetit greater- than the Pr-ifieipal
t+nit not to exeeed the heiOt limit of the zone.
(2) Detailed design: All ADUs shall provide detailed design using at least four
(4) of the following architectural features:
(i) Trim to denote all building's roof lines, porches, windows and
doors that is at least three (3) inches wide
(ii) Dormers
(iii) Gables
(iv) Recessed entries
(v) Covered porch entries
(vi) Offsets in building face or roof (minimum sixteen (16) inches)
(vii) Bav windows
(viii) Decorative cornices and roof lines
(ix) Shutters
(x) Brickwork, masonry or stucco
(xi) Any alternative feature providing visual relief similar to the
options listed above provided it must be approved by the Director
(g) The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same facade of the structure
as an entrance to the principal unit. Exterior stairway shall not be constructed on the street -
frontage side of the principal dwelling unit.
(h) Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition
to that which is required for the principal unit. When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas
used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface.
(i) When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may
allow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate
accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code.
(i) An ADU shall be reauired to be served by City water and sewer or an abbroved
septic system.
Title 20 BMC Updates
SECTION 4. 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 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
2017.
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this day of )2017.
PATTY LENT, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
PUBLISHED the day of
EFFECTIVE the day of
ORDINANCE NO.
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
2017.
2017.
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Title 20 UPDATED 05.31.2017.docx
I
Title 20 BMC Updates
Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
The proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code include amending Title 20 Land Use Chapter
related to appeals, fences, occupied Recreational Vehicles, Automobile Service and Repair as a
permitted use in the General Commercial zone and as a Conditional Use in the Neighborhood Business
zone, the definition of Automobile Service and Repair, and regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Project Description:
The proposed amendment package includes revisions to Title 20 as follows:
• A clarification to the Appeals code section, regarding who has standing to appeal;
• A minor revision to fence regulations;
• Revisions to the regulations regarding occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) on private
property;
• Allowing automobile service and repair as an outright permitted use in the General
Commercial zone;
• Permitting automobile service and repair as a conditional use in the Neighborhood
Business zone, where existing buildings are suitable for the use and where additional
criteria are met.
• Revising the definition of Automobile Service and Repair, to include repair of any
vehicles not registered to the resident, in a residential area.
• Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit criteria for approval, including removing owner -
occupied requirement, adding design standards, and revising the size limitations.
2. Procedural History:
2.1 Planning Commission Workshop: April 18, 2017
2.2 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: April 24, 2017
2.3 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: April 20, 2017
2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: May 6, 2017
2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 16, 2017
3. Public and Agency Comment:
3.1 April 18, 2017 Workshop Comment: Mike Coslett, owner of Cars Automotive business.
Wants to locate at 3740 Wheaton Way
3.2 April 18, 2017 Workshop Comment: Byung Yu Ben, property owner at 3740 Wheaton
Way. Would like an auto related business to be able to operate there.
4. SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non -Significance was issued on April 24, 2017, to date no comments or
appeals have been filed.
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.
Exhibit A
(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:
LU2(A): In order to combat chronic vacancy experienced in select areas, the City should
consider zoning regulations that promote occupancy for buildings that are experiencing
prolonged vacancy.
LU2(C): Support adaptive reuse of existing buildings with uses that are compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
H1(F): Promote a robust code enforcement program to protect the safety and aesthetic
quality of existing neighborhoods.
H3(A): Provide opportunities for the production of new housing for all incomes, ages,
and family types through infill by stimulating growth of non-traditional housing types such
as townhomes, carriage units, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes in locations where
they will seamlessly infill into the fabric of the existing neighborhoods.
H4(D): Encourage efficient permit review by eliminating unnecessary regulatory
impediments, improving certainty in development regulations, and provide an expedited
permit process.
(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, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to
the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, 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.
submitted by:
Secretary ck Wo ff , Pla ng Commission Chair
dG
FJ
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Allison Satter, Senior Planner
Date: June 30, 2017
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
SUMMARY
City Council is requested to provide a decision for the proposed Ordinance that amends the
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The revisions to
the ADU provisions include removing the owner -occupancy requirement, add additional design
standards, and revisions to the allowed unit size.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Planning Commission unanimously recommended the ADU amendments
following a Public Hearing held on May 16, 2017. Minutes from this meeting as well as the
workshop held on April 18, 2017 are attached to this report.
Minority Report: Though Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Zoning Code
Amendments, in regards to the Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed amendments, the Chair was
concerned for removal of the requirement that the owner needs to occupy one of the units on-
site (discussed in more detail later in this memo). A motion was proposed by the Chair for
consideration during the meeting to maintain the owner -occupancy requirements of the code,
however the motion was not accepted by members of the Commission. Director Spencer
assured the Commission that this minority report would be delivered to the Council.
CITY COUNCIL'S OPTIONS:
• Approved amendments as proposed by Planning Commission; or
• Modify the proposed amendments; or
• Reject the proposed amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Current ADU provisions
• Attachment B: Proposed Amendments to ADU provisions (duplicate of ordinance
language without legislative markup)
• Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes from April 2017: Workshop and May 2017:
Public Hearing
SUMMARY OF ACCESORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs)
Accessory Dwelling Units in Washington State
Many Washington cities and counties are required by the 1993 Washington Housing Policy Act
to adopt ordinances encouraging the development of accessory apartments or accessory
dwelling units in single-family zones. Specifically, this legislation applies to:
• Cities with populations of over 20,000,
• Counties with populations of over 125,000, and
• Counties/cities that plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Local codes must incorporate the model ordinance recommendations prepared by the
Department of Commerce (RCW 43.63A.215 and RCW 36.70A.400). State law allows local
communities some flexibility to adapt these recommendations to local needs and preferences.
ADU ordinances have been widely adopted in Washington, since the 1993 Act. In part, this is
because ADUs have helped local jurisdictions meet GMA goals to encourage affordable housing
and provide a variety of housing densities and types, while preserving the character of single-
family neighborhoods.
History of ADUs
Bremerton has had ADU provisions in zoning code since the 1988 Zoning Code. In general,
development of accessory dwelling units can be traced back to the early twentieth century,
when they were a common feature in single-family housing. After World War II, an increased
demand for housing led to a booming suburban population. This development can be
characterized as large lots and an emphasis on the nuclear family, suburban development
conformed to Euclidean -type zoning codes, a system of land -use regulations that segregate
districts according to use.
Suburbs continued to be a prevalent form of housing development throughout the 1950s and
1960s. The rapid growth of suburbs reinforced the high demand for lower -density development,
and ultimately led most local jurisdictions to prohibit ADU construction. In spite of zoning
restrictions, illegal construction of ADUs continued in communities where the existing housing
stock was not meeting demand; San Francisco was one such community. During World War II,
the Bay Area experienced a defense boom that created a high demand for workforce housing,
resulting in a large number of illegally constructed second units. By 1960, San Francisco housed
between 20,000 to 30,000 secondary units, 90 percent of which were built illegally. Today, City
of San Francisco assumes 20% of their marketed rental properties are illegal.
In response to suburban sprawl, increased traffic congestion, restrictive zoning, and the
affordable housing shortage, community leaders began advocating a change from the sprawling
development pattern of suburban design to a more traditional style of planning. Urban design
movements, such as Smart Growth and New Urbanism, emerged in the 1990s to limit
automobile dependency and improve the quality of life by creating inclusive communities that
provide a wide range of housing choices (the Washington State Growth Management Act is
another prime example). Both design theories focus on reforming planning practices to create
housing development that is high density, transit -oriented, mixed-use, and mixed -income
0 Page 2
through redevelopment and infill efforts. In the late 1970s to the 1990s, some municipalities
adopted ADU programs to permit the use and construction of accessory units. Many of these
programs were not very successful, as they lacked flexibility and scope. Although a number of
communities still restrict development of accessory dwelling units, there is a growing awareness
and acceptance of ADUs as an inexpensive way to increase the affordable housing supply and
address illegal units already in existence. Source. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Accessory Dwelling Units. Case
Study: https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/publications/ADU.pdf
Why is Bremerton discussing ADU revisions?
As highlighted in a recent My Turn article in the Kitsap Sun (dated June 26, 2017), "Local supply
of rental housing is down, demand is up, and those with the lowest financial resources are being
squeezed to the point of homelessness. Wages remain stagnant and newly -built market -rate
rental and owner -occupied housing in Kitsap County remains out of reach for many."
(http://www. kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/2017/06/26/my-turn-kitsap-county-should-consider-
housing-Ievy/430537001/). Though the article is primarily about a promoting a housing levy, it
does capture the housing predicament that many citizens of the City of Bremerton are currently
facing. Community Development staff and Planning Commission saw this as an opportunity to
look at our current codes to see how we can try to address this housing issue in some way.
This current proposal is relaxes some aspects of the ADU provisions so that the City can
promote more ADUs as another form of housing.
How many ADUs has the City permitted?
Accessory Dwelling Units are currently not widely used in the City. Since 2007, the City of
Bremerton has approved and completed final inspections for 15 ADUs within 11 years:
Year
No. of ADUs Produced
2007
3
2008
2
2009
1
2010
2
2011
0
2012
0
Year
No. of ADUs Produced
2013
2
2014
0
2015
2
2016
3
2017
(Jan -June)
None Pending
The trend of permitting very few ADUs is common in most cities within the State. Many cities
have been exploring policy changes that would increase the production of ADUs. City of Seattle
has studied many options to revision their ADU provisions to address their need for more
housing. A recent revision that Seattle adopted was to relax their ADU provisions to allow
Detached ADUs ("backyard cottages"), prior to this ADUs had to be attached or within the
principal unit, and since 2010 fewer than 200 detached ADUs have been constructed ("less than
one quarter of 1 % of the single-family lots in Seattle" (source: "Removing Barriers to Backyard
Cottages" Seattle DPD Report & Analysis. October 2015:
www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web informational/s010013.pdf)). Seattle is
continuing to explore other options to promote ADUs including removing the off-street parking
requirements for new ADUs (similar to Portland standards).
0 Page 3
What is proposed for Bremerton's ADU regulations?
Planning Commission sees the potential benefits of ADUs and recommends reducing the
regulations to make ADUs a more viable option in Bremerton. The increasingly tight housing
market means fewer affordable housing units available citywide; ADUs are one way to provide
infill housing without significant investments in new infrastructure to support housing growth. In
addition, the amendment to the current regulations will allow many unpermitted, illegal existing
units to be legitimized through current permitting.
The proposed amendments to the ADU code include:
Removal of the Owner -Occupancy Requirement — The existing regulations require
homeowners with an accessory dwelling unit to reside in either the principal or the
accessory unit for at least six months of the year. This requirement originally arose due to
concerns that allowing ADUs without it would effectively allow duplexes citywide. Under
the current code, a property owner cannot rent both the principal unit and an accessory
unit. Furthermore, a property owner that currently rents their residence cannot construct
an ADU for rental without terminating the rental agreement for the house and moving into
either the principal unit or the accessory unit. Striking the owner -occupied requirement
will allow both the principal and accessory unit to be rented. This would provide property
owners greater flexibility to decide how and whether to rent their units, will remove a
potential barrier to ADU construction, and potentially increase the number of quality
housing units available.
Concerns have been expressed that removing this requirement would essentially allow
duplexes, it is true that this requirement would allow two -rentable units on a property,
however the additional design standards have been proposed that require the ADU
maintains the appearance of as a single family home and the ADU be subordinate.
Duplex Example
-Equal in size
-Entrance can be on same side
-Usually "mirrored" floor plans
-These features are not allowed by
the ADU code
0 Page 4
Accessory Dwelling Unit & Principal Unit Example
-One unit is subordinate
-Entrances to both units cannot be on the same fapade
or street frontage
-ADUs should appear similar to principal unit
2. Revising the Maximum and Minimum Size Requirements — The current code has
minimum and maximum size requirements of 300 to 1,000 square feet respectively. The
Code also requires that the ADU not exceed 60 percent of the principal unit square
footage. The amended code maintains the 60 percent provision but eliminates the
minimum and maximum square footage requirements. This amendment still assures that
the unit remains subordinate in size from the principal unit, or will appear as part of the
single-family home. The proposed amendments contain provisions that allow some
existing residences (constructed prior to 2017) with nonconforming or unrecognized
upstairs/downstairs flats to create ADUs. This provision has been proposed to address
many illegal units in the City that have been developed as two apartments (upstairs is
mirrored to the downstairs). This will allow these units to obtain a permit and gain building
and fire safety compliance and ensure Bremerton has more quality housing units.
3. Including Design Criteria —The proposed code requires that a proposed ADU include at
least four (4) of twelve (12) listed potential design elements, in addition to the current
regulations of height, roof pitch and exterior materials. The additional design criteria was
added to ensure ADUs appear like a small, single-family home.
4. Clarification of the Parking Requirement — The code has been proposed to be
amended to emphasize the requirement that parking spaces be paved. This requirement
exists in current code, but can be overlooked since parking requirements are in a
separate chapter of the zoning code. This amendment will help property owners better
assess the feasibility of an ADU. The current code regarding how much off-street parking
is required is not proposed to be changed. The current and proposed regulations require
three paved off-street parking spaces (two for the residence and one for the ADU). If they
cannot locate parking onsite, then the ADU would not be allowed.
5. Clarification of Required Setbacks — The proposed code would permit ADUs to meet
the same setbacks as accessory structures. This will allow ADUs to be located on the
top of a detached garage.
As Staff understands the importance of trying to promote more quality, affordable housing units
into the City, we also understand that the amendments are more progressive than the
regulations many of our local jurisdictions have currently adopted (below is a summary of other
jurisdictions and how they regulate ADUs). Staff has committed to monitoring ADU permitting
and provide the findings to Planning Commission regarding how the new regulations are
working. The anticipated timeframe would be to provide the first report in 18 months (end of
2018). If additional amendments are needed at that time, Planning Commission has committed
to re-evaluating this section. However, Planning Commission and Staff agree that these
amendments are something Bremerton needs to obtain more affordable, quality housing into the
City.
0 Page 5
Bainbridge Island
Port Orchard
Yes
— year round
50% of the principal unit
Poulsbo
Yes
— 6 months
800 square feet maximum, Conditional
Use Permit for larger building
Kitsap County
Yes
— 6 months
50% of the principal unit not to exceed 900
square feet
Tacoma
Yes
— year round
40% of the principal unit not to exceed
1,000 square feet
Everett
Yes
— year round
75% of the principal unit not to exceed 800
square feet
Shoreline
Yes
— year round
50% of the principal unit
Gig Harbor
Yes
Maximum 600 square feet
Portland, Oregon
No
75% of the principal unit not to exceed 800
square feet
Bremerton (current)
Yes
— 6 months
60% of the principal unit not to exceed
1,000 square feet
Bremerton (proposed)
No
60% of the principal unit
Is this consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed zoning code amendments to the ADU provisions are consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
• Housing Element Vision: to encourage the growth of Bremerton by strategically
locating a wide variety of housing types throughout the City.
• Housing Goal 2. Encourage the development of a variety of new housing options and
densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton's residents.
• Housing Goal 3. Support access to quality and affordable housing for all Bremerton
residents.
• Policy H2(C). Supporting infill development and increased densities
• Policy H3(A). Provide opportunities for the production of new housing for all incomes,
ages, and family types through infill by stimulating growth of non-traditional housing
types such as townhomes, carriage units, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes in
locations where they will seamlessly infill into the fabric of the existing neighborhoods.
• Policy H3(C). Support increased densities and infill projects in order to capitalize on
the cost efficiency of utilization of existing utility services.
• Policy H2(E). Respond to the special needs of the elderly population within the City.
Encourage programs which allow elderly to remain in their homes as long as possible.
• Policy H3(E). Eliminate unnecessary regulatory impediments to the development of
affordable housing.
0 Page 6
• Land Use Element Vision. Bremerton is a metropolitan city that provides for economic
vitality and diverse lifestyles through a broad variety of jobs, housing, and strategically
located commercial and recreational opportunities.
• Policy LU3(D). Adopt site and building standards that contribute to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions and result in more sustainable development.
• Policy LU3(1). Promote infill and concurrent infrastructure improvements in areas that
are already developed in order to preserve rural areas, open spaces, and ecological
functioning lands within the City.
• Policy LU1-LDR(C). Allow accessory units associated with, and subordinate to,
existing or new single family dwellings when appropriate.
How does this impact the Landlord License Requirement?
During the Study Session on June 14, City Council brought up the concern regarding how would
removing the owner -occupied requirement for ADUs impacts the Landlord License pursuant to
BMC 5.02 and 5.06. Currently the code exempts the property owner from getting a landlord
license if a property owner lives on site and is renting out one unit on premise (this can include
an ADU or renting out one room within your house would be exempt from getting a landlord
license). This only applies if the property owner rents one unit, if there is more than one unit
rented, a landlord license is required. Therefore, if the owner -occupied requirement for ADU was
removed and a property owner wanted to rent out the primary structure and the ADU, a landlord
license will be required.
Does Bremerton have too much rental units?
The City of Bremerton has 42.7% owner -occupied housing units pursuant to the 2010 Census
records. That would equate to 57.3% of the housing units being renter -occupied (the City has
about 15,000 units, so about 8,600 units are rental). The national trend for home ownerships
has been a 60%/40% split: 60% owner -occupied, and 40% rental units. Bremerton does not fall
into the national average and it has been a goal to develop policies to affect our trend.
Through substantial research, Staff has identified a few key considerations for Council regarding
the City having more rentals then the national average:
• Navy Influence. Being located adjacent to the Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)-Bremerton,
the City of Bremerton serves a transient population. At any time, the NBK-Bremerton
is port to one to three naval vessels, with each vessel hosting approximately 3,000
sailors, officers and supporting Navy staff to this area. There are some onsite
accommodations on base, but many of Navy employees seek housing (and the
housing -stipend) off the base and into our community. Due to our location, many Navy
personnel will seek renting versus home ownership as their time here in Bremerton is
typically limited to a few months to a few years (and subject to change depending on
their orders). Bremerton, as most military towns, have additional rentals due to this
very important transient population.
An example of a few communities that are adjacent to a military installation are
comparable to the City's trend (based off the 2010 Census data):
➢ Lakewood/Joint Base Lewis-McChord: 46.2% homeownership
0 Page 7
➢ Everett/Naval Station Everett: 43.9% homeownership
➢ San Diego/Naval Base San Diego: 46.9% homeownership
➢ Groton, CT/Navy Submarine Base New London: 41.5% homeownership
➢ New London, CT/Navy Submarine Base New London: 35.2% homeownership
➢ Junction City Kansas/Fort Riley Army: 46.1 % homeownership
➢ Columbia, South Carolina/Fort Jackson Army: 47.4% homeownership
➢ Watertown, New York/Fort Drum Army: 41.4% homeownership
➢ Havelock, North Carolina/Cherry Point Marine Corps: 42.9% homeownership
Staff has heard from Navy personnel that if the owner -occupied requirement for ADUs
was removed, this would encourage some to buy instead of rent. This is because if an
Officer buys a house, builds an ADU and then gets stationed across the country or
sent across seas on a mission, how the current code is written, the Officer would have
to remove the tenant of the ADU and would only be able to rent out the primary unit (if
the Officer did not live at their home for more than 6 -months of the year). This greatly
impacts the property owner, and the ADU tenant, and thus is not widely used by the
military population. In addition, the ADU's tenant could be a great resource for the
Officer's property as this is additional income and when they are serving their orders,
the tenant could be maintaining their property in their absence.
National Home Ownership Trends. The second consideration for Council is that the
national trend of owner-occupied/rental units appears to be changing. On March 23,
2017, Bloomberg release an article entitled Renters Now Rule Half of U.S. Cities: The
American Dream increasingly involves a lease, not a mortgage
(httr)s://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/renters-now-rule-half-of-u-s-cities), which identifies
that the national trend of 60%/40% is getting closer to a 50/50% spilt of owner -
occupied to rental units. The article identifies that 52 of the 100 largest U.S. cities
were majority -renter in 2015; 21 of those cities have shifted to renter -domination since
2009 and these include such "hot housing markets" as Denver and San Diego (which
San Diego is also a town adjacent to a military installation). This trend of more renters
is anticipated to grow throughout 2030 due to the demographic trend that includes
aging baby boomers who downsize into rentals.
What does this mean for people who already have ADUs?
If an ADU was permitted prior to this code adoption, the code provisions at the time of
application is what the property vest to. The property owner is allowed to maintain the ADU for
the life of the structure. If they wanted to remove the owner -occupied requirement, a separate
permit would be required to remove the current notice to title that is on their property deed.
Contact Information
I am happy to answer questions that the City Council or public has regarding the Planning
Commission's recommendations to amend the ADU provisions. Please call or email me, Allison
Satter at (360) 473-5845 or Allison.Satter(aD-ci.bremerton.wa.us
0 Page 8
Attachment A
Existing ADU Code
20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be installed where a new or existing single-family dwelling unit
(hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are exempt from density requirements and
shall be subject to the following specific development, design and owner occupancy standards:
(a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for the principal unit
including setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
(b) An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit.
(c) Only one (1) ADU may be created per lot.
(d) The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must occupy either the
principal unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for at least six (6) months out of the year.
(e) An ADU shall be limited to not more than:
(1) Sixty (60) percent of the principal unit's total floor area (not including basement); and
(2) One thousand (1,000) square feet maximum, nor less than three hundred (300) square feet.
(f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family
residence including the following:
(1) Constructed of similar materials and siding as the principal unit;
(2) A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit;
(3) A height no more than twenty-five (25) percent greater than the principal unit not to exceed
the height limit of the zone.
(g) The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same facade of the structure as an entrance to
the principal unit.
(h) Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is
required for the principal unit.
(i) When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may allow reasonable
deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate accessibility such as those
required by the International Building Code.
(j) An ADU shall have a deed restriction recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor to indicate the
presence of the ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit
as described above. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 5008 §4, 2007: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A)
(part), 2005)
Attachment B
Proposed ADU Code without legislative markup
This attachment shows the ADU revisions proposed in Section 3 of the Ordinance without
the strike -through and underline indicators.
20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be permitted where a new or existing single-
family dwelling unit (hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are exempt
from density requirements and shall be subject to the following specific development, and design
standards:
(a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for
the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage or BMC 20.44.060: Accessory
Structures Setbacks for detached ADUs.
(b) An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit.
(c) Only one (1) ADU may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1)
single-family dwelling unit and one (1) ADU.
(d) Manufactured homes may be allowed as an accessory dwelling unit provided it
complies with the design criteria of ADUs and must comply with BMC 20.46.040 Manufactured
Home provisions, excluding subsection 20.46.040(a)(2) and (6) regarding size and roof pitch.
(e) An ADU shall be subordinate to the principal unit. The ADU shall be limited to
not more than sixty (60) percent of the principal unit's total habitable floor area with the
following exception:
(1) To encourage the compact infill development and use of existing single-
family homes, if a residence that was constructed or remodeled prior to January 1, 2017 is
proposed to be divided into a principal unit and an ADU, the Director may allow equal square
footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of
the existing residence. This does not apply to detached ADUs.
(f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of
a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods
through careful design. Unless the ADU is limited to only interior remodeling of an existing
single-family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards:
(1) Exterior Finish: The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing
which in color, material and appearance which is comparable to the predominant materials of the
primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood.
(i) Roofing: A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit;
(ii) Eaves: The minimum projection is 12 inches.
(2) Detailed design: All ADU's shall provide detailed design using at least
four (4) of the following architectural features:
(i) Trim to denote all building's roof lines, porches, windows and
doors that is at least three (3) inches wide.
(ii) Dormers
(iii) Gables
(iv) Recessed entries
(v) Covered porch entries
(vi) Offsets in building face or roof (minimum 16 inches)
(vii) Bay windows
(viii) Decorative cornices and roof lines
(ix) Shutters
Attachment B
Proposed ADU Code without legislative markup
(x) Brickwork, masonry or stucco
(xi) Any alternative feature providing visual relief similar to the
options listed above (must be approved by the Director).
(g) The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same facade of the structure
as an entrance to the principal unit. Exterior stairway shall not be constructed on the street -
frontage side of the principal dwelling unit.
(h) Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition
to that which is required for the principal unit. When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas
used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface.
(i) When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may
allow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate
accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code.
0) An ADU shall be required to be served by City water and sewer or an approved
septic system.
Attachment C
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
April 18, 2017
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present
Vice Chair Tift
Commissioner Conley (arrived at 5:47 p.m.)
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Goodnow
Commissioner Nerf
Commissioner Strube (arrived at 5:31 p.m.)
Commissioners Absent
Chair Wofford (excused)
Quorum Certified
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff Present
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Kelli Lambert, Planner, Department of Community Development
COMMISSIONER NERF MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER
GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Conley was
not present for this vote.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER GOODNOW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017 AS
AMENDED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note:
Commissioner Conley was not present for this vote.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Vice Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting.
Attachment C
Public Workshop: Amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 (Zoning Code)
Staff presented the following amendments:
• Appeals (BMC 20.02.140). Ms. Lambert advised that the current code omits the property owner as a person who has
standing to appeal a staff decision. The proposed amendment would correct this omission and be consistent with both
State Law and the Building Code. The problem came to staff's attention when a property owner had to file two separate
appeals because of the omission.
Fences (BMC 20.46.020.g). Ms. Lambert reviewed that the current code states that fences must present a "finished
appearance" on their outside face, but there is no definition for the term "finished." This problem came to staff's
attention during code enforcement, and the Hearing Examiner found for the homeowner because the term is not defined.
The term is very difficult to define, and staff's research of other municipalities found that most are silent on the matter.
The intent of the provision is to avoid unsafe or unattractive fences, and staff found that the code already has language to
address these concerns. SMC 6.02 (Public Nuisances) prohibits "the existence of arty fence or other structure on private
property, which is in a sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed or other unsafe condition. " The proposed amendment would
remove the provision related to "finished appearance" from SMC 20.46.020(g).
Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) (BMC 20.46.050). Ms. Lambert reviewed that the current zoning code allows
for an owner to occupy an RV for up to one year on a property when they are building a new home. It also permits an
RV on a residential property to be occupied for a cumulative period not to exceed 30 days during any 12 -month period.
Enforcement of this provision is a community concern and the City Council agreed it is a priority to make amendments
to make it enforceable. As currently worded, it is difficult to enforce the 30 -day provision when the Code Enforcement
Officer only works on weekdays. The proposed amendment would establish a new RV Permit for tracking RVs on
residential properties. The permit would allow the City to better track dates of occupancy, and there would be no fee.
When a property owner applies for a permit, he/she would be required to identify the dates the RV would be occupied
and acknowledge the City's regulations.
Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.42 Definitions). Ms. Lambert advised that the Code Enforcement Officer
receives complaints from time to time about auto repair being done on residential properties. Often there are multiple
vehicles on site, and they are blocking access on the street or sidewalk. She reminded the Commission that auto repair is
not permitted as a licensed home-based business, but property owners often claim the work is being done for family
members or friends, not as a business. Repairing a resident's own personal vehicle might be considered reasonable, as
long as other properties are not impacted. However, repairing vehicles that are not registered to the owner or tenant is
unacceptable. The proposed amendment would alter the definition of "Automobile Service and Repair" by adding an
additional sentence that reads, "Servicing and repairing of automobiles on a residential lot for automobiles that are not
registered to the property owners or tenants on the site shall be considered automobile service and repair. "
Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.62 General Commercial). Ms. Satter reminded the Commissioners that
part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update involved streamlining the zoning code by consolidating 12 commercial
zones into 5. The change allowed automobile sales in the Freeway Corridor and Industrial zones only. However, an
unintended consequence of the change was that it also limited automobile service and repair uses to the Freeway
Corridor and Industrial zones to compliment the areas that allowed automobile sales, and the use was eliminated from
two zones (Commercial Corridor and Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor) that previously permitted auto service and
repair. She explained that it was not staff's intent to limit automobile service and repair along the commercial corridors,
as there are numerous existing businesses that became nonconforming with this use elimination. Ms. Satter advised that
the proposed amendment would allow automobile repair and auto -related businesses outright in the commercial zones,
which are intended for urban, high-intensity commercial activities.
• Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.82 Neighborhood Business). Ms. Lambert explained that the
Neighborhood Business (NB) zones are commercial zones, but they are intended to be small-scale business districts that
reflect the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. She identified the Neighborhood Business areas as: Naval
Avenue from 5t' to Burwell (near the entrance to the shipyard), 6`s Street from High Avenue to Veneta, Callow/Wycoff
(Hi Lo's, Hales' Ales vicinity), Marine Drive/Dora Avenue, Arsenal Way near Marion Avenue, Sheridan Road near Pine
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017 — Page 2 of 7
Attachment C
Road, and Manette. Although staff is not recommending that auto -related uses be permitted in Manette, which is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a City Center, there are other areas of NB zoning that may accommodate this
type of business due to existing structures and land uses. Staff is seeking feedback from the Commission about the
option of allowing automobile service and repair as a Conditional Use within the NB zones. She further explained that,
if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to establish an automobile service and repair business, staff would propose
conditions that a proposed business within this zone would need to comply with. These conditions would likely include
the following:
o The Manette NB zone is excluded from permitting auto -related business as it is a designated Center per the
Comprehensive Plan.
o The automobile service and repair business must locate within an existing building that was originally built to
accommodate this type of use rather than constructing a new building.
o All parking and outdoor storage areas, if permitted, must have visual screening.
o Applicants must demonstrate compliance with noise, odors and light/glare regulations.
Accessory Dwelling Units. Ms. Satter noted that this item was not included in the Staff Report. She explained that
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are basically smaller homes that are subordinate to larger homes on single-family lots.
ADUs are located throughout the City and offer a less costly option for housing. The City allows ADUs as a way to
address the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that the City meet the housing needs for all economic
segments of the community. In addition, the Washington Housing Policy Act, which was passed by the Legislature in
1993, established the goals of reducing housing costs and improving housing quality for people of all income groups.
The City's code also calls for infill design and higher densities, as well as quality housing. She referred to December
2016 article in THE KITSAP SUN, which identified the City of Bremerton and the Silverdale Metro area as having a
healthy housing market. However, that will not necessarily be the case in the future. It is important to have housing
units that are both quality and affordable. The City must work to provide a range of housing options, and ADUs are one
of the opportunities we should provide.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the first ADU provisions were adopted into the City's zoning code in 1988, the code was
further amended in 2005. However, the provisions have not been reviewed since that time. This is an opportunity for
the Commission to provide preliminary direction and comments about on how well the ADU provisions are working to
encourage more quality houses. She noted that many people have created illegal ADUs in the City, and perhaps changes
could result in more quality units and fewer illegal units. Staff will present proposed changes at the next Commission
meeting.
Vice Chair Tift asked for public comments on the proposed zoning code amendments
Mike Coslett, Bremerton, said his comments were related to property at 3740 Wheaton Way, where the existing Cars
Automotive business is located. He specifically referred to the vacant building that is adjacent to Cars Automotive, which
was previously utilized for auto -related activities. He explained that the use is no longer allowed based on the recent zoning
limitations that were put in place. He said he currently operates a mobile auto -detailing business, which has grown
substantially, he is looking for a home base for his business, and the property at 3740 Wheaton Way would be an excellent
location.
Bien Yu, Bremerton, said he owns the property at 3740 Wheaton Way and noted that one of the four units has been vacant
for about 3 years. It was previously occupied by an auto glass business. He expressed his belief that this is a great location
for auto -oriented businesses to serve the community. He noted that there are a number of vacant buildings on Wheaton Way.
The Commission discussed each of the proposed amendments as follows:
• Appeals (BMC 20.02.140). Commissioner Strube commented that the proposed amendment sounds reasonable, and
the remainder of the Commissioners concurred.
• Fences (BMC 20.46.020.g). Commissioner Jones asked if the provision refers only to fences facing the street or all
fences. Ms. Lambert said the fence code is primarily used for private properties and applies to all fences. Director
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017 — Page 3 of 7
Attachment C
Spencer said staff has done significant research and found that no other city in the state has defined the term "finished."
The term is based on the observation of the user and is difficult to define.
Vice Chair Tift agreed that it is difficult to define what constitutes "finished. To him, "finished" means complete. He
asked how the code would address a situation where a fence is started but never finished. Ms. Lambert answered that
this issue could be addressed by the provisions in SMC 6.02 (Public Nuisances).
Commissioner Conley asked if the proposed amendment allows room to address the material and design of a fence.
Ms. Lambert answered that the current code does not specify materials because there are a variety of nice fences made
from different materials. The City's intent is to be more inclusive. However, the code does prohibit fences that are in
bad repair. Commissioner Conley said he would be inclined to allow property owners to have any type of fence they
want, but he suggested that chain-link fences should be discouraged through incentives. Vice Chair Tift cautioned
against opening up this discussion, which would further limit property rights. He reminded them that many
neighborhoods have covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) that govern fencing materials and design.
Commissioner Conley agreed that it would not be appropriate for the City to prohibit chain-link fences. However, he
would be in favor of opportunities to incentivize other options.
The Commissioners offered general support for the proposed amendment.
• Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) (BMC 20.46.050). Commissioner Strube asked if the City receives a
significant number of complaints relative to people living in RVs. Director Spencer said they receive complaints about
the most egregious situations. Staffs thought was that a no -fee permit that was easy to obtain would help the Code
Enforcement Officer address problems.
Commissioner Jones asked if the City would fine property owners who violate the provision by not obtaining a permit.
Director Spencer reviewed the multi -step code enforcement process, which starts with notification of the violation. If
not addressed appropriately, the issue could eventually go before the Hearing Examiner, who could impose a fine or
penalty. Commissioner Jones asked if staff has considered charging a nominal fee for the permit. Director Spencer
said the permit is intended to allow the City to track the impacts without creating a real impediment or burden.
Commissioner Goodnow asked if the permit would be displayed in the window of the RV, and Director Spencer
answered affirmatively. Commissioner Goodnow said he can think of several situations where occupied RV's are a
problem. Vice Chair Tift emphasized that the provision would apply to occupied RV's and not stored RV's.
The Commissioners offered support for the proposed amendment.
Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.42 Definitions). Commissioner Nerf recalled that when he was young and
financially challenged, he regularly associated with vehicles that were mechanically challenged. In at least a half dozen
instances, he was part of some fairly major repairs in driveways that would be in violation of the proposed amendment.
All of the problems were resolved in a day or two and would not likely have drawn the attention of code enforcement.
He suggested that perhaps a permit approach similar to that proposed for RV's would be appropriate. Director Spencer
said the amendment is not necessarily intended to preclude situations that take place over a day or two. The problems
the City hears about are people who do car repair as a business, but claim they are simply doing repairs for friends.
Commissioner Strube agreed with Commissioner Nerf s concerns. He has a friend who supplements his income by
repairing cars in his garage on the weekends. He can understand concerns about nuisance and noise, but he is opposed to
placing limits on a person's ability to repair a car in his/her driveway. On the other hand, he recognizes that the
amendment is intended to deal with more significant concerns. He said his dad was a mechanic, and he grew up working
on cars in his yard. He would hate the City to prohibit property owners from being able to do minor repairs for friends.
Director Spencer said the City has received complaints from property owners, particularly where the lots are very small,
and the Code Enforcement Officer is unable to address the problem because it is difficult to prove that he/she is actually
operating a business.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017 — Page 4 of 7
Attachment C
Commissioner Goodnow commented that the intent of the proposed amendment is to give the Code Enforcement
Officer some teeth to address problem situations. The issue is really about people not being good neighbors. The
violation would be targeted at people who have multiple cars and claim that they are all their own. He suggested that
perhaps a 30 -day window would be appropriate for cars that are not registered to property owners. Director Spencer
noted that the turnover rate would typically be much quicker than 30 days. Commissioner Strube commented that there
is not really an easy solution to the problem, and he supports the proposed amendment. However, he has some
reservations about its impacts. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the City only receives complaints when
someone is abusing the opportunity.
Commissioner Conley asked if battery charging stations would fall under the definition of "Automobile Service and
Repair." Ms. Satter answered no. Charging stations are defined separately.
Vice Chair Tift expressed his belief that the proposed definition would give code enforcement some teeth to address
problem situations that are reported. There would be no harm associated with those who work on vehicles for friends
and neighbors in a respectful way, and these instances would not likely be reported. Director Spencer emphasized that
code enforcement is done on a complaint basis, and the Code Enforcement Officer does not actually police
neighborhoods.
• Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.62 General Commercial). Ms. Satter said the CG zone already has a
number of auto -related businesses, and these would be nonconforming as the code is currently written. The proposed
amendment would correct the problem. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the proposed amendment would address the
concerns that were raised by Mr. Yu and Mr. Coslett, and Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. The Commission voiced
support for the proposed amendment.
Automobile Service and Repair (BMC 20.82 Neighborhood Business). Commissioner Nerf referred to the
photographs provided by staff and noted that all of the sites could be improved by having them in use rather than vacant.
Buildings in use are always better than derelict buildings. Vice Chair Tift referred to the Noah's Ark area, where an old
gas station is located next to the market. Currently, the code would not allow this site to be used as an auto -oriented
business. He asked if staff would consider the conditions and character of the surrounding areas before granting
approval if the use was allowed with a CUP. Ms. Lambert confirmed that the CUP would require an additional level of
review and the use would have to meet specific criteria, which would include compatibility with adjacent properties.
Ms. Satter reminded the Commission of the criteria that was proposed by staff that would prohibit the use in the
Manette area and restrict the use in other NB zones to existing buildings.
At the request of Commissioner Strube, Ms. Satter explained how the CUP process works, noting that there is additional
cost associated with the application and an on-site posting would be required and the public would be invited to
comment on the proposed use. The CUP process allows the City to condition approval to address potential impacts.
Vice Chair Tift asked if the City would have the ability to deny a CUP application. Director Spencer answered that the
City could deny a request that fails to meet the criteria to address off-site impacts. Ms. Satter added that, typically,
impacts can be mitigated via the CUP process.
Commissioner Strube pointed out that there are existing buildings in the Manette area that would also be suitable for an
automobile service and repair use. He asked why staff is recommending that the use not be allowed there. Director
Spencer reminded the Commission that auto -oriented uses do not really fit in with the "Centers" concept that is outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan. There are so few centers left, and the good ones need to be protected.
Ms. Satter summarized that staff is recommending that automobile service and repair uses be permitted in NB zones
with a CUP, particularly in existing buildings that are suitable for the use. She explained that some buildings have an
industrial design that is not really suitable for retail uses. However, staff is not necessarily recommending that the City
allow new development to accommodate the use. Commissioner Nerf said he supports the proposed amendment, but he
would prefer that the use be limited to existing buildings and not new construction. The remainder of the
Commissioners concurred.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017 — Page 5 of 7
Attachment C
Accessory Dwelling Units. Commissioner Nerf recalled that there has been a lot of talk in Seattle about "tiny homes,"
some of which have composting toilets rather than being hooked up to sewer. He asked if that would be within the
purview of an ADU in Bremerton. Ms. Satter answered no. She explained that, for a number of years, ADUs required
separate water and sewer meters which is very cost prohibitive, and this requirement resulted in a number of people
creating ADUs illegally. The Public Works Department recently updated the City's general facility charge to
acknowledge a single-family home's impact on the City's sewer and water system. The new charge is based off the
capacity of the meter rather than the number of units. Most single-family home meters can handle a minimum of two
units. That means that ADUs can hook up to an existing meter and there would be no additional cost. However, there
will only be one water or sewer bill per meter. Eliminating this additional cost will make it easier for people to develop
ADUs.
Director Spencer summarized the need to review and update the ADU provisions. The City receives a number of
complaints about illegal ADU's, and many of them cannot be made to conform because they cannot meet the current
code. One of the City Council's goals is to make quality housing for all, and all housing should be required to go
through a permitting process. A primary goal of the update should be to encourage the ADUs that were created in the
1980s to meet the current code requirements so they are considered "quality" housing units.
Commissioner Strube asked if it would be possible to allow updates to be done in phases so that landlords can bring the
units into compliance over time rather than requiring all the work to be done at the same time. This would give landlords
the incentive to make improvements as they can afford them. Ms. Satter said violations of the property maintenance
requirements must be immediately addressed. Director Spencer added that it would depend on the changes that are
proposed. She agreed to consider this option when creating potential amendments for the Commission's consideration.
She said staff spends a lot of time addressing ADU issues, and the number one goal is to create quality housing for
residents. The intent is to make the code a little bit easier, but also protect the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Goodnow suggested that bringing existing homes up to quality standards is really a separate issue from
the new wave of "tiny houses." Perhaps the two should be addressed separately. Director Spencer agreed and said staff
has been doing preliminary research regarding "tiny houses."
Ms. Satter advised that the proposed amendments would be presented to the Commission for a public hearing at their
May meeting. Following the Commission's recommendation, the amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for
final adoption. The process will likely take three months to complete.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017 — Page 6 of 7
Attachment C
Vice Chair Report
Vice Chair Tift did not have any items to report.
Director Report
Director Spencer did not have any additional items to report. She indicated she would print out a quarterly report relative to
permits over the last few years. She said staff is getting busy with a number of projects coming on line.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
ck Wo , Chair
lanning mmission
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2017- Page 7 of 7
Attachment C
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
May 16, 2017
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
Chair Wofford
Vice Chair Tift
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Goodnow (arrived at 5:59)
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Nerf
Commissioner Strube
Quorum Certified
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff Present
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Kelli Lambert, Planner, Department of Community Development
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER NERF
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2017 AS AMENDED.
COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note:
Commissioner Goodnow was not yet present to participate in the vote.)
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 Hearing: Amendments to Bremerton Municipal Zoning Code (BMC) Regulations
Ms. Lambert reviewed that the Commission held a workshop on April 17th to discuss proposed zoning code amendments.
She summarized the zoning code amendments (Attachment I) as follows:
Attachment C
• Appeals — BMC 20.02.140. Because of an oversight in the existing zoning code regarding who has standing to appeal a
land -use decision, a property owner recently had to file two separate appeals. This discrepancy with the State Land Use
Petition Act 9 (RCW 36.70C) and the Building Code (BMC 17.04.150) can be corrected with a simple addition to the
Appeals code. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment, which would add "property owner" as a party
with standing to appeal.
• Fences — BMC 20.46.020. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the ambiguous term "finished." This term is
difficult to define. Staff recommends that the entire statement in Item G (All fences shall present a "finished"
appearance on their outside face) should be eliminated. There are other codes in place to address property maintenance
requirements.
Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) — BMC 20.46.050. As discussed at their last meeting, the City's current zoning
code allows a property owner to occupy an RV on his/her property for up to a year while constructing a new home. It
also allows an RV to be occupied for a cumulative period not to exceed 30 days during any 12 -month period. An RV is
a good resource for homeowners who have visitors; but it can also be a problem, and the City has received complaints.
The City Council has made addressing this issue a priority, and the Code Enforcement Officer has indicated that it is
problematic to track the 30 -day allowance. The proposed amendment would require an RV permit to help track legally -
occupied RVs on private property. As proposed, the permit would be available online and, initially, there would be no
fee to encourage compliance. In addition to identifying the dates of occupancy, etc., it would also show that the
property owner has acknowledged the City's regulations.
Automobile Service and Repair — BMC 20.42.040. The proposed amendment would revise the definition of
"automobile service and repair" to add an additional sentence that reads, "Servicing and repairing of automobiles on a
residential lot for automobiles that are not registered to the property owners or tenants on the site shall be considered
automobile service and repair. " The intent of the amendment is to address situations where a property owner or resident
in a residential neighborhood does substantial vehicle repairs, with multiple vehicles. The current code does not allow
the use in residential zones, but when the Code Enforcement Officer has approached property owners in these situations,
she has been told that they are not doing it for money and therefore the code doesn't apply.
Automobile Service and Repair — BMC 20.62.020. An outcome of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update was
streamlining and consolidation of the 5 commercial zones, which resulted in unintended consequences in that it removed
"automobile service and repair" as a permitted use from all but the Freeway Corridor and Industrial zones. Staff has
recently heard from several prospective automobile service and repair businesses that it is difficult to find a location
where their businesses can locate. The proposed amendment would allow "automobile service and repair" as an outright
permitted use in the General Commercial (CG) zone, which is intended to `provide locations for high-intensity
commercial uses serving the entire community. "
Automobile Service and Repair — BMC 20.82.040. When considering areas of Bremerton that may be suitable for
automobile service and repair, existing buildings that are located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zone were brought
to staff's attention. These buildings were built for industrial or auto -related purposes and are well suited for this type of
business. The intent of the NB zone is "to provide for small-scale business districts that reflect the scale and character
of surrounding neighborhoods. " Because automobile service and repair can have impacts, staff is not recommending
that the use necessarily be allowed outright in the zone. However, staff is recommending that the use be allowed as a
conditional use in the NB zone. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requires an applicant to meet specific criteria before
approval, and the City can place conditions on the use to mitigate the impacts. At their last workshop, the Commission
agreed that the use might make sense if located in an existing building. Other criteria could include visual screening for
parking areas adjacent to residential properties, limiting the hours of business, and prohibiting outdoor storage. In
addition, staff is recommending that the use not be allowed in the Manette Neighborhood Center.
Ms. Satter explained that ADUs are second, smaller dwelling units on the same grounds of a single-family home, and they
can be either attached or detached to the main home. ADUs must provide for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation
on the same parcel as the main residence. An ADU provides a complete, independent living facility for one or more people.
The concept of ADUs is to promote infill within urban cities. She provided examples of different types of ADUs (detached,
attached, and interior conversions). At the end, all structures on the residential property should appear like a single-family
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 2 of 8
Attachment C
home rather than an apartment in a single-family neighborhood. She explained that the State's 1993 Housing Policy Act
requires cities with a population of over 20,000 and counties with a population of over 125,000 to plan and allow for ADUs.
The City adopted the model ordinance that was proposed by the State, but it has the ability to modify the ordinance to address
local needs and preferences.
Ms. Satter shared examples of ADU's in other jurisdictions, noting that jurisdictions in Oregon have made more strides in
incorporating ADU's into their housing stock than those in the State of Washington. She also shared pictures and described
the features of a Bremerton ADU she previously lived in across from Kiwanis Park on 5h Street. She explained that the
benefits of ADUs include: increasing the community's housing stock without having further land development; facilitating
efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure; providing an affordable housing option for many low and moderate -
income residents; providing more opportunities for small housing options; improving homeowner's cash; and providing more
opportunities for people to remain in their homes for longer periods of time.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the median gross rent in Bremerton from 2011 to 2015 was $882. As identified in THE KITSAP
SUN, rents are significantly rising. In 2016, the median rent was about $1,052. The City Council is concerned about rising
rents and the need to provide places for more residents to live. The estimated 2015 household income for Bremerton is about
$48,000, and allowing ADUs could provide an additional source of income for City residents.
Ms. Satter said concerns have been raised that ADUs are associated with additional renters who do not always care for their
properties. In 2005, the rental rate was 60% versus home ownership of 40%, and the argument was that a functioning City
should have 60% home ownership and 40% rental. The zoning code was adjusted to encourage more ownership and fewer
renters. Since that time, the City has acknowledged that it is a Navy community; and staff has researched home ownership
rates in comparable cities (Lakewood, Washington 46%; Everett, Washington 44%; San Diego, California 47%; Gritton/New
London, Connecticut 350/o/41%; and Junction City, Kansas 46%). These statistics make it clear that military communities
typically have a higher number of units to accommodate renters.
Ms. Satter commented that everyone deserves quality housing. The current code prevents people from obtaining permits,
but permits are needed to ensure quality construction. If quality housing is not available, the environment and transportation
get impacted because people move out further from the places they work. Studies show that children who grow up without
housing stability have a greater chance of lower economic success later in life. By the same token, children experiencing
housing instability also experience reduced academic outcomes. Housing instability also negatively impacts a person's
mental and physical health, and providing housing can lower public health and social service costs. The proposed
amendments are intended to be one step towards removing the current impediments to having quality housing.
Ms. Satter reviewed the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing. She summarized that
the Housing Element Vision is to "encourage the growth of Bremerton by strategically focusing on a wide variety of housing
types throughout the City. " Housing Goal II is to "encourage the development of a variety of new housing options and
densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton's residents. " Housing Goal III is to "support access to quality and
affordable housing to all Bremerton's residents. " The supporting policies talk about infill development, providing
opportunities for new housing for all (including ADUs), promoting infill projects that are cost efficient and utilize existing
utility services, allowing the elderly to remain in their homes as long as possible, and eliminating unnecessary regulatory
impediments of development of affordable housing as much as possible. The Land Use Element Vision is that "Bremerton is
a metropolitan city that provides for economic vitality and diverse lifestyles through a broad variety of jobs, housing and
strategically -located commercial and recreational opportunities. " This includes housing. It is important to adopt standards
that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote infill for areas that are already developed, and allow ADU's that are
associated with and subordinate to existing and new single-family dwellings when appropriate.
Commissioner Goodnow arrived at 5:59 p.m.
Ms. Satter reviewed the proposed amendments related to ADUs as follows:
• Remove the owner -occupied requirement — BMC 20.46.010. The current code requires that a property owner must
occupy either the ADU or the primary residence of the ADU for a minimum of 6 months out of a year, and staff is
proposing to remove this requirement to allow more opportunities for infill. This change will also allow owners with
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 3 of 8
Attachment C
historically unapproved ADUs who may have purchased non -conforming structures to make their properties legitimate
by obtaining the needed permits. It is difficult for staff to enforce the current provision and verify that ADUs are being
used legitimately, especially after a sale of the property. Even though it is required to have a Notice to Title on the
property deed, the City's experience is that buyers do not acknowledge the notice in the large stack of closing
paperwork. Some concerns have been raised that lax regulations encourage absentee landlords, but there is no evidence
to support this claim. The Code Enforcement Officer enforces rental properties, as well as owner -occupied properties,
and the City receives code enforcement complaints regarding both. She referred to an online article about Portland's
experience with their revised ADU provisions, which remove the owner -occupied requirement. Staff suspects that, even
with the proposed code amendment, the split of rental vs. owner properties will remain about the same. Currently, the
staff and public spends a lot of hours researching whether or not an ADU is a legal unit, usually for situations that
involve financing and often there is no evidence in the City's record of legitimate ADU's. In addition, if a tenant in an
ADU reports an unsafe or unhealthy condition, the City requires that the landlord resolve the issue. Once a tenant learns
that an ADU is illegal and he/she will have to leave, the complaint is often withdrawn. Once a complaint has been
withdrawn, there is not a lot the City can do to get the property owner to bring the unit into compliance. Staff believes
the City should consider opportunities to encourage property owners to bring the units into compliance.
Setbacks requirements for ADUs — BMC 20.46.010.a. Most ADUs will be located in the Low -Density Residential
(R-10) zone, where the current setback requirements are 15 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear, and 5 feet on each side.
Staff is proposing that detached ADU's be required to meet the same setbacks that are allowed for garages, which are
considered accessory structures. Garages off alleyways can have a 0 -rear setback and just 3 feet on each side. A 3 -foot
rear setback would be required on properties that are not located on an alleyway. The intent is to promote ADU's on top
of garages. A 15 -foot front setback would still be required.
• Who can have an ADU — BMC 20.46.010.c. The current code allows only one ADU on a residential lot, and this
would not change. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the limitation that only two units are allowed on a
property. For example, a lot that already has a duplex would not be allowed to have an ADU, as well.
Manufactured homes — BMC 20.46.010.d. A provision was added to allow manufactured homes as ADUs provided
they comply with the design criteria for ADUs and with the provisions for manufactured homes found in BMC
20.46.040. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent to make ADUs more subordinate to the primary
residence. She noted that there is a demand for tiny homes, which could be permitted as an ADU. However, the
International Building Code (IBC) requires that housing must be placed on a permanent foundation. Roll up homes
(wheels and chassis) will still be allowed, but they must comply with the City's RV standards.
Maximum and minimum requirements — BMC 20.46.010.e. Staff is proposing three revisions to this section:
Remove maximum size of 1,000 square feet, remove minimum size of 300 square feet, and acknowledge
upstairs/downstairs flats as ADUs. As proposed, ADU's must be secondary dwelling units that are subordinate to the
primary unit and are limited to 60% of the primary unit's habitable floor area. These changes will address tiny homes,
which can be as small as 96 square feet. It will also help accommodate ADUs on top of garages and address situations
where property owners install "fake" walls in order to pass inspection and reduce livable area. The proposal is to
maintain the 60% (of the primary residence) size limitation, with no specific maximum or minimum identified. In an
attempt to address older homes that have already been converted into two units, one upstairs and another downstairs,
staff is proposing an amendment that will allow equal square footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is
located completely on a single floor of the existing structure constructed before January 1, 2017. The idea is to
encourage owners of existing ADUs to bring them up to code and obtain the necessary permits.
Design standards — BMC 20.46.010.f. The current design standards for ADUs only have three provisions: ADUs must
be constructed of similar materials as the principal unit, roofs must be the same pitch or greater, and the height cannot be
more than 25% taller than the principal building. Staff is proposing to revise the design criteria to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed design criterion contains a list of 12 architecturally unique design
elements, and the applicant of an ADU will need to incorporate at least 4 of the 12 to construct an ADU. The options
include recessed entryways, dormers, gables, covered porches, offsets in building face or roof, bay windows, decorative
cornices and rooflines, and shutters. The amendment would also allow a developer to propose an alternative feature that
provides visual relief similar to the options listed.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 4 of 8
Attachment C
On-site parking — BMC 20.46.010.h. Although paved parking areas and driveways are already required in another
section of the code, additional language was added to the ADU section to make the requirement clear and reduce
confusion and misunderstandings.
Utilities — BMC 20.46.010.j. The City recently changed its utility code, and property owners are no longer required to
add a new water meter to a property to accommodate an ADU. However, it would remain an option so that property
owners can charge the residents of both units separately. Adding a water meter is costly (about $10,000 to $12,000).
The revised code allows a property owner to add an additional unit without providing another water meter, if the existing
meter has sufficient capacity. To clarify the requirement, staff is proposing additional language that every ADU must be
served by City water and sewer/septic system. Currently, people are promoting composting and incinerator toilets,
which are allowed in the City. However, they cannot be considered the primary source within an ADU.
Ms. Satter summarized that staff is proposing flexibility in the ADU code, which allows for better utilization of existing
infrastructure, accommodates more people and dollars into the community and promotes more quality housing. It is
important to remember that Bremerton is the metropolitan city of Kitsap County, and it is expected to be an urban, dense
environment. Staff understands there are neighborhood concerns that allowing ADUs in residential neighborhoods will
reduce property values, but there is no evidence to back up these concerns. In fact, studies show that the resale value of a
property will increase if an ADU is added. There is also concern that non-resident landlord properties will be neglected, but
there is no evidence to support the claim. The proposed amendment supports the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies
for quality housing, provides a variety of housing options, and has a potential to reduce the number of non -conforming
properties.
Because the proposed amendments to the ADU provisions are new and different and there could be unintended
consequences, Ms. Satter said staff will provide a report to the Planning Commission no later than 18 months from the time
the provisions are adopted. This will allow the Commission an opportunity to evaluate how well the provisions work and
recommend amendments as needed.
Chair Wofford opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience who indicated a desire to participate, and
Chair Wofford closed the public hearing. He invited the Commissioners to share their thoughts on the proposed
amendments as follows:
• Appeals — BMC 20.02.140. The Commissioners did not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments.
• Fences — BMC 20.46.020. The Commissioners did not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments.
• Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) — BMC 20.46.050. Vice Chair Tift asked if the City would permit an RV to
be occupied for more than 30 days. Ms. Lambert answered that occupancy of more than 30 days would only be allowed
in situations where a property owner is constructing a home. If a building permit has been issued for the property, the
owner can occupy an RV for up to 1 year while the home is being built. As currently written, there would be no other
circumstance that would allow someone to occupy an RV for more than 30 days.
Commissioner Goodnow asked if the provision would pertain to the property or the RV. For example, would each
different RV on a property be allowed a 30 -day occupancy? He cautioned against allowing property owners to operate a
type of Airbnb for RV's in their driveways. Ms. Lambert answered that the provision is intended to pertain to the
property, and not to individual RVs that might be located on the property throughout the year. Ms. Satter added that
only one RV is allowed on each lot.
Vice Chair Tift asked how often a homeowner could obtain an occupancy permit for an RV. Ms. Lambert answered
that the current language would limit occupancy to a total of 30 days, and only one RV could obtain an RV permit.
However, the 30 -day occupancy could be spread throughout the 12 month period.
• Automobile Service and Repair — BMC 20.62.020, BMC 20.82.040, and BMC 20.42.040. The Commissioners did
not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 5 of 8
Attachment C
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — BMC 20.46.010. Commissioner Conley referred to the proposed amendments in
BMC 20.46.010.a and asked if an ADU would be allowed to locate on top of a garage that does not comply with the
current setback requirements of the zone. Are their provisions for grandfathering in these structures? Ms. Satter
explained that the non -conforming provisions try to get things into conformance. If a property owner is proposing
changes or repairs to a structure that equate to more than 75% of its value, the current code requires that the garage be
built to meet all code requirements. Director Spencer clarified that the non -conforming provisions require that the
ADU would not increase the non-conformance. For example, you could do an ADU on top of a garage that is non-
conforming, but the ADU portion of the building would have to meet the setback requirements. That means it might
need to be stepped in from the property line.
Vice Chair Tift asked if community covenants that limit the number of homes on each property to one would take
precedence over the ADU ordinance. Director Spencer answered affirmatively. She explained that the use would be
permitted by City code, but the City does not enforce community covenants. Staff tries to notify applicants when their
current covenants do not allow ADU's, if we are aware of the restriction.
Commissioner Goodnow referred to RVs being used on residential properties versus tiny homes on trailers. He asked if
someone could make the case that their RV is a tiny home on a trailer. Ms. Satter answered that tiny homes are
considered RVs if they have wheels and therefore the RV provisions would apply. In order for a tiny home to be
considered an ADU, it would have to be connected to a permanent foundation and the chassis would need to be removed.
Commissioner Goodnow asked if there is way for someone to permanently occupy a tiny home on a trailer in
Bremerton. Ms. Satter answered that it would be considered an RV, and the 30 -day occupancy limit, if adopted, would
apply. Commissioner Goodnow commented that tiny homes seem to be growing in popularity and need to be
addressed. Ms. Satter noted that they would be allowed in mobile home parks, and manufactured parks can be located
in low-density residential zones. Director Spencer said the proposed ADU amendments are intended to allow the City
to proceed cautiously. Removing the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs is a sensitive topic, and staff wants to
ensure that the resulting ADU units are quality and do not compromise the fabric of the neighborhoods. Any housing in
the neighborhoods should be permanent. Tiny homes rolled into backyards are not intended to be a true housing
solution, at this point, especially with the removal of the owner -occupancy requirement.
Commissioner Nerf clarified that, as proposed, the provision in BMC 20.46.010.e, which pertains to splitting a house
into two units (primary residence and ADU), would apply to properties constructed before January 1, 2017. Does that
mean that the structure had to exist before that time, or that the division had to exist before that time. Ms. Satter said it
means that the structure had to exist before that time frame, not the ADU split, and is not intended to apply to new
construction.
Chair Wofford asked if ADU's would be required to meet the City's current limitations on impervious surfaces. Ms.
Satter answered affirmatively. She referred to BMC 20.46.010.A, which requires that ADUs comply with the
development standards of the underlying zone, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. The lot coverage limitation
for most residential zones is 60%. This requirement will be a limiting factor for a number of properties in the City,
especially when 3 parking spaces are required for the ADU and primary residence.
Chair Wofford noted that, as proposed, an ADU could connect to the septic system that is in place for the primary
residence. He asked if it would be appropriate to require an ADU to be hooked to a sewer line if one runs by the
property. Ms. Satter said that, as per the current provision, a property that is within 200 feet of a sewer line must hook
up to the sewer line when adding a new unit or the septic system fails. That means that, even if a primary residence is
served by an existing septic system, a new ADU would be required to hook up to sewer.
Chair Wofford recalled that in her presentation, Ms. Satter referred to ADUs as granny flats, in-law apartments, etc.
These terms infer that the main unit will be owner -occupied. He said he supports retaining the owner -occupancy
requirement.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 6 of 8
Attachment C
Commissioner Goodnow requested clarification about the requirement that ADU's must have paved driveways and
parking spaces. Ms. Satter said the definition of a "paved surface" is a surface that is constructed of bounded materials.
That means it cannot be gravel or rocks. A property owner has several options, including pervious pavement, and the 3
required parking spaces must each be at least 8' x 18'.
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT 1, BASED UPON THE
STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT II.
COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Wofford suggested that the motion be amended to exclude the proposed amendment to BMC 20.46.010, which would
eliminate the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs. Commissioner Goodnow clarified that the current requirement is
that the primary residence or ADU must be owner -occupied for at least 6 months each calendar year. Ms. Satter said it is not
uncommon for property owners to mislead the City about occupancy, and the requirement is very difficult to enforce. Even
though a Notice on Title is required, the current standard practice is for both units to be rented. None of the other
Commissioners indicated support for an amendment to the motion, but Director Spencer noted that the City Council would
be advised of Chair Wofford's concerns about owner occupancy via a minority report. She agreed that this is a concern, and
that is why staff is recommending an evaluation check 18 months after code adoption. Chair Wofford suggested that it
might be difficult to reinstate the owner -occupancy requirement at a later date.
Vice Chair Tift expressed his belief that the proposed amendments related to ADUs could have unintended consequences,
and it will be important for staff to report back to the Commission after a period of time. Director Spencer expressed her
belief that the risk/reward associated with the proposed amendments will be worth it. People are doing this already, and the
changes may encourage them to obtain the required permits and get people into quality housing units. However, staff is
absolutely committed to providing a report.
THE MOTION, AS STATED, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Wofford did not have any items to report.
Director Report
Director Spencer reviewed permit statistics, which are a good indicator of the value of new construction. In April, the City
issued permits that were valued at $3.8 million, more than the previous two year combined (2015 was $1.9 million and 2016
was $744,000). February was a similar story. This is an indication that permit activity is heating up and will likely get hotter
based on inquiries staff is receiving.
Director Spencer said staff has been following online "Region of Boom" stories on KUOW, which talk about the growth
trends in Puget Sound outside of Seattle. She received an email from KUOW, that Bremerton will be the next area
highlighted, and she and Ms. Satter were interviewed last week for their radio program, along with other members of the
community. The story will be published in late June or early July. She said Bremerton is a great community that is different
than anywhere else. She worries about gentrification and what the influx of money from King County will mean for the
community. It is important for the City to improve its codes so it gets the right kind of housing stock for all of its residents.
She voiced appreciation to the Commissioners for their willingness to entertain amendments to the ADU provisions, which
step outside their box of comfort. She felt the changes would be good for the City's future.
Old Business
There was no old business.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 — Page 7 of 8
Attachment C
New Business
Commissioner Nerf reported that he recently attended a seminar on Homelessness that was sponsored by the League of
Women Voters. At the event, references were made to wooden tents, which are sometimes referred to as tiny houses. He
suggested it would be good for the City to clearly understand what the terms mean and have some provisions in place for
these types of housing units. Director Spencer said she has been struggling with this issue a lot because there is not clarity.
She is scheduled to meet with Kitsap County's DCD Director to learn more about what the terns mean and what
infrastructure needs to be in place to support the units. Commissioner Goodnow said he recently read that a number of tiny
homes were constructed for the homeless on the waterfront in Port Orchard. Director Spencer said she is trying to
understand more about how the county is permitting the "tiny houses," which appear to be constructed similarly to storage
sheds. While she understands that they offer an inexpensive solution, it does not seem right to ask someone to live in that
kind of condition. Commissioner Goodnow acknowledged that it is a step up from a tent or tarp behind a building.
Commissioner Jones said her daughter worked for the Low -Income Housing Institute in Seattle, which has an entire
program for tiny houses. She suggested staff could fmd some valuable information from the institute's website. The homes
in Seattle look more like houses than sheds, but they were small. Director Spencer said the tiny homes in Seattle all have
their own facilities inside, which seems to be the right solution.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
ck Wofford, Chair r j
Planning Commission
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2017 -- Page 8 of 8
From: Christine Grenier on behalf of City Council
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 0:36 AM
To: Marlena Marie'
Cc: City Council
Subject: RE: Citizen Support - Ordinances relating to Block Parties and "War Boxes" (Marlena
Marie)
Attachments: JULY S, 2017.pdf
Ms. Marie,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which has Been provided to the Council Mernbers for their review and.
consideration. it will also be included as a hart of the record under General Business Item SB on the attached agenda:
B. Ordinance No. 5328 to amend Chapter 5.36 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Special Events"
relating to Neighborhood Block Parties
Due to the subject matter, your e-riiiil wAs aiso shared with Mayor Lent and the City Attorney.
Also, your comments regarding "War Boxes" have been shared with Community Development staff; and will be included
as part of the record for the
Public Hearing and Ordinance to approve 2017 Zoning Code Amendments (ADU's)
Thank you for taking the time to share your comments.
Christine Grenier
Council/Auditor Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-52$0
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
www.BremertonWA.go�
. '.
From: Marlena Marie[mailto:6centsmarketing@gmail.comj
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:51 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Block Parties and War Boxes
Hello Mr Davis,
I'll be working at the hospital on the 5th but if I were available, instead I would love to attend this week's
council meeting to express my support for the change that, if approved, would allow for neighbors to gather to
connect and share in this great city without the ridiculous fee of hundreds of dollars in permits and insurance,
Instead, I would like to see Bremerton take the example that Kirkland uses so that we can have unifying Block
Parties in neighborhoods all over Bremerton. Please vote in favor of changing to the $25 process.
Also,
I"m very interested in the discussion about the war box houses that has been postponed to the 19th. I just bought
one with my main home, and was excited to learn the history. If I'm free from work that night I will certainly
be there. Regardless of my attendance I urge you to vote in favor of anything that would facilitate restoration of
these historic homes, as well as the use of environmentally friendly tiny homes like them.
Thank you,
Marlena Marie
Bern and Raised in Kitsap and
New Resident/Owner @
2005&2007 6th Street.
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Citizen Letter - Supports ADU Setbacks (Dana & Ben Sheppard)
Attn: Council Members (FYI)
From: Allison Satter
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:02 PM
To: City Council City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject, FW: July 19 vote on ADU setbacks
Can you please make this part of the record for tonight's meeting: Citizen Letter of Support for Zoning Code Amendment
to the ADU Provisions.
From: tallchick6@gmail.com [mailto:tallchick6@gmail.com1
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017. 1:10 PM
To: Allison Satter CAllison.Satter@ei.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: July 19 vote on ADU setbacks
Hello Allison,
I've become aware that the City Council will be voting on whether to change ADU rear/side yard setbacks to
3'. I'm writing to let you know that my husband and I are in favor of this change.
We are in the process of purchasing a property in Manette and would like to build a garage with an apartment
above it. The property is long and narrow, so having a 3' setback from the rear property line would enable us
to do this. I'm sure our lot is not the only one in the city that has constraints of existing structures
and challenging dimensions. Changing the ADU setbacks would enable more ADU's to built, which will provide
more affordable housing units in the city, which is sorely needed.
If there is anything else we cn do to support this change in the setbacks, please let us know.
Thank you,
Dana Sheppard and Ben Sheppard
360-981-5340
Sent from Windows Mail
1
SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee's
Recommendations for
FY -2018 Funding Allocations
AGENDA BILL ��
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
Study Session Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
July 12. 2017
July 19, 2017
City Council
Pat Sullivan, LTAC Chair
(360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton anticipates approximately $830,000 in revenue will be
available for distribution in Fiscal Year 2018.
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) received eighteen (18) requests for funding.
Following the interview process, one request was withdrawn. Committee members reached
consensus and are recommending funding to 17 applicants and to continue the City of
Bremerton's commitment to the Kitsap Conference Center and the Admiral Theatre Foundation.
Recommended allocations include $315,000 for non-profit organizations.
It is also recommended that $250,000 be allocated for operations at Kitsap Conference Center for 5 -
years and $95,000 for a one-time debt service payment.
The City of Bremerton has a 50 year commitment ending in 2040 with the Admiral Theatre
Foundation for $90,000 per year plus an additional $60,000 per year through 2017. The committee
recommends that this additional funding commitment to be continued through 2022 for a total
allocation of $150,000.
Finally, it is recommended that $20,000 (unallocated by the committee) be carried over as part of the
beginning fund balance for Fiscal Year 2018.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Summary of LTAC Recommendations for2018
2) Staff Memorandum
3) Lodging Tax — Frequently Asked Questions (MRSC)
4) Funding History
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): RCW 67.28 specifies that a municipality may either
accept or reject the committee's recommendations. If any individual recommendation is rejected by
City Council, then the unallocated amount will be held in the fund's reserve and that unfunded
organization will have significantly reduced marketing efforts for Bremerton.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation x❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to accept the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's recommendations as presented; and to
include the allocations in the City of Bremerton's Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget.
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01/07/15
BREMERTON LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2018
Name of Organization
Requests
Recommended Allocations
Bremerton Historic Ships Association
$66,000
$66,000
Washington State Science and
Engineering Fair (WSSEF)
$45,000
$45,000
Visit Kitsap Peninsula
$48,000
$40,000
Bremerton Chamber of Commerce
$38,000
$32,000
Bremerton Symphony Association
$25,000
$25,000
Kitsap County Historical Society & Museum
$24,000
$24,000
Downtown Bremerton Association
Rock the Dock Concerts
$20,000
$20,000
Downtown Bremerton Association
WayzGoose Kitsap
$30,000
$20,000
Kitsap Entrepreneurial Center
Kitsap Harbor Festival
$12,000
$12,000
Olympic College Foundation
Kitsap Wine Festival
$10,000
$10,000
Valentinetti Puppet Museum
$7,000
$7,000
Kitsap Pride Network
Kitsap Pride
$5,000
$5,000
West Sound Art & Music Association
Ukelele Festival
$5,000
$5,000
Dominion Historical Workboat Association
$4,000
$4,000
City of Bremerton
Kitsap Conference Center
Operations
$250,000
$250,000
City of Bremerton
Kitsap Conference Center
Debt Service
$95,000
$95,000
Admiral Theatre Foundation
$150,000
$150,000
Beginning Fund Balance/Reserve
$20,000
$852,000
$830,000
CITY COUNCIL 345 6T" Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 (360) 473-5280
To: Council Members
Mayor Patty Lent
Financial Services Director DeWayne Pitts
From: Christine Grenier, Council/Auditor Assistant
Date: July 7, 2017
RE: City of Bremerton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Recommendations
Appropriate uses for funding are specified in RCW 67.28 which include marketing, tourism promotion,
and operating expenditures related to tourism promotion. Tourists are defined as those who travel
more than 50 miles. Cities may use the funds for the same purposes as non-profit organizations as
well as capital expenditures related to tourism.
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee received eighteen (18) requests for funding for Fiscal Year 2018.
After reviewing the applications and holding interviews with each of the applicants, the committee
discussed and reached consensus on its recommendations to City Council. Following the interview
process, one (1) request was withdrawn which was due to pending non-profit status.
These recommendations are subject to Council review and approval. City Council may only fund
organizations listed in the recommendations, and can accept or reject funding for each of the
applicants. Per RCW 67.28.1817 (2), should council wish to award funding in a different amount than
recommended, up to the amount of the request, any changes may be provided to the committee for
comment 45 days before final action.
Lastly, these recommendations are based on the assumption that adequate revenue will be available to
meet contract obligations.
From the approximate $830,000 anticipated to be available in 2018, the committee recommends:
$315,000 to 17 non-profit organizations promoting tourism and special events
$250,000 to the Kitsap Conference Center for Operations through 2022
$95,000 to the Kitsap Conference Center for Debt Payment
$150,000 to the Admiral Theatre Foundation through 2022
$20,000 to the Fund Reserve
Bremerton Historic Ships Association
Requested $66,000
Recommended Allocation $66,000
The Bremerton Historic Ships Association (BHSA) operates tours onboard the USS Turner Joy and a
gift shop on the Louis Mentor Boardwalk. Visitors may take an onsite ship tour, go aboard for special
events, or visit as part of a package.
The Turner Joy received over 41,000 visitors and from that amount, over 34,000 are considered
"tourists", those who travel from more than 50 miles away or stay overnight.
The website http:I jussturnerjo� y.org/ includes mobile functionality as well as links to other local
attractions and hotels to assist event planners. A concierge map is also provided to tourists staying
overnight in Seattle with Bremerton and the Turner Joy included as a destination. Rack cards are
available on the Washington State Ferries.
Collaboration for marketing includes Kitsap Harbor Tours, Navy League, Naval Museum, Bremerton
Chamber of Commerce, Naval Undersea Museum, Washington State Ferries, Seattle Premier
Attractions and Visit Seattle. Packages are promoted to military reunion groups, Girl and Boy Scouts,
and to groups hosting special events or ceremonies. Historic Ships also ties into STEM activities as
part of the Washington State Science and Engineering Fair.
Marketing includes rack cards on board ferries and across the region, boardwalk and highway signs,
ads through Kitsap Guide, brochures and maps through Seattle Premier Attractions and Visit Seattle,
and online with Trip Advisor and Facebook.
Funding would be used to continue marketing efforts plus expansion to all ferry routes, Seattle
Premier Attractions, Seattle Concierge Program, commercials, Attract China program (translate
materials), signage, advertising, social media and online presence.
Washington State Science & Engineering Fair
Requested $45,000
Recommended Allocation $45,000
The Washington State Science and Engineering Fair (WSSEF) is a statewide competition for students
held at Bremerton High School held in late spring. This event also includes a film festival. More than
3,500 people participate in or attend the fair and of those visitors, 94% qualify as tourists and 53%
stay overnight.
WSSEF is aggressive in its outreach efforts to numerous fairs throughout the state, as well as science
based organizations, businesses, schools, and universities. In addition to printed materials, WSSEF
has a website http://wssef.org� and does utilize social media. WSSEF also has televised "Inside
Bremerton" segments on BKAT, and ads in newspapers, journals and magazines. Student project
boards from the fair have been featured in the Norm Dicks Government Center lobby and at Seattle's
Pacific Science Center.
WSSEF collaborates with other educators during the Washington Home School Convention,
Washington Science Teacher Association Conference, along with several events and symposiums to
N
expand the fair's message all over the state and beyond. There are also partnerships with Olympic
College, Bremerton School District, and Parent Teacher Student Associations.
Participants also receive a "goody bag" which has information on the Turner Joy, Naval Museum
(Bremerton and Keyport), Parks and Recreation programs and events, and local restaurants among
many other tourist stops. Attendees are going to be offered a special rate to stay overnight in
Bremerton.
Funding from the City of Bremerton will be used for marketing, development of multi -media materials,
website updates, and development of new regional fairs.
Visit Kitsap Peninsula
Requested $48,000
Recommended Allocation $40,000
Visit Kitsap Peninsula provides services to Kitsap peninsula through its visitor center, website and
printed marketing materials. Advertising may also be found in NW Travel magazine, Outdoor
magazines, Inside Golf magazine, West Sound Home and Garden magazine, and brochures on board
Washington State Ferries.
Funding would be used to dedicate a webpage on www.visitkitsal2.com for Bremerton and for
inclusion in the Visitor Guide, Bike Map, and Garden Guide. Tourism related businesses, attractions or
events, some lodging, museums, art galleries, and microbreweries will be featured in brochures and
the monthly newsletter.
Bremerton Chamber of Commerce
Requested $38,000
Recommended Allocation $32.000
Visitor Center & Armed Forces Festival
The Bremerton Chamber of Commerce (BCC) is a member based organization which operates a visitor
center in downtown and sponsors the annual Armed Forces Day Parade. The Parade draws between
25,000 and 40,000 visitors and about 7,500 visitors travel from out of the area.
The visitor center assists up to 50 visitors over the phone and in person daily. To offset costs of
operating the visitor center, the Chamber uses interns from Coffee Oasis. The Chamber provides
printed directories at the visitor center, ferry terminal, and local businesses.
Marketing involves the Kitsap Sun, Sound Publishing, KITZ radio, Visit Kitsap Peninsula, Certified
Folder, Google Adwords, and the West Sound Home and Garden magazine. The Chamber has a mobile
application "My Chamber App" and a website http://www.bremertonchamber.org/.
Funding from the City of Bremerton will be used for marketing, website and mobile application,
operation of the visitor center, and supplement efforts for the Armed Forces Festival.
Bremerton Symphony Association
Requested $25,000
Recommended Allocation $25.000
The Bremerton Symphony Association (BSA) offers events featuring the Symphony Orchestra, Youth
Orchestra and Symphony Chorale. Events drew over 7,000 attendees and of those attendees, 133
travelled more than 50 miles (July 2016 to May 2017).
The Symphony Orchestra currently collaborates with the Poulsbo Community Orchestra, Bainbridge
Chorale, and Northwest Sinfonietta (Tacoma -Puyallup -Seattle). Additional partnerships with Kitsap
Opera and the Navy Band will include performances next year. Future partnerships may include the
Downtown Bremerton Association for a performance during the Rock the Dock Concert Series.
Continued marketing through radio ads on KING -FM is anticipated to draw subscribers who would
likely stay overnight.
Events have been featured in the Kitsap Sun Art and Entertainment section, Kitsap Weekly, the
Symphony's website at www.bremertonsymphony.org, on posters and flyers, and on social media.
Funding from the City of Bremerton would be directed towards regional and statewide marketing to
reach new subscribers.
Kitsap County Historical Society
Requested $24,000
Recommended Allocation $24,000
The Kitsap County Historical Society (KCHS) operates a museum and gift shop downtown and
promotes education and culture through its museum exhibits, "Speaker Series", "Heritage Family
Celebration", and "Eat Your Way Through Kitsap" Programs. The Historical Society is also part of the
Armed Forces Festival, Military Appreciation Day, First Friday Artwalks, After -Hours, and the Kitsap
Antique Show. The Museum had nearly 9,000 visitors last year with over 800 as tourists; and shared
tourism information with 376 visitors last year.
Partnerships included sharing rack card costs with The Valentinetti Puppet Museum; partnering with
the Puget Sound Geneological Society for the Kitsap Antique Show; working with Olympic College on
the Yama Project; sharing their space with Bremerton Symphony and Bremerton Lions to hold
meetings at the museum; and participating in Downtown Bremerton Association hosted events like Art
Walks, Safe Trick or Treat, and Winterfest.
Marketing reaches to the Kitsap Sun, social media, BKAT, Blue Star Museums, Seattle Museum Month,
Bremerton Chamber of Commerce, Visit Kitsap Peninsula, printed materials and on
httn: //www.kitsaDhistorv.orL-/.
Funding from the City of Bremerton would be used towards graphics design and printing of marketing
materials, website and social media, advertising, support for museum operations and membership in
the North American Reciprocal Museum Association (NARM).
4
Downtown Bremerton Association
Requested $20,000
Recommended Allocation $20.000
Rock the Dock Concert Series
The Downtown Bremerton Association hosts and promotes several events including St. Patrick's Day
Parade, Rock the Dock Concert Series, Safe Trick or Treat, Ladies Night Out, and Winterfest.
Partners include the Bremerton Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap Credit
Union. Its website www.downtownbremerton.orlinks to Facebook and Instagram. Advertising is
also done through event posters and the Kitsap Sun.
Funding would be used towards support of the Rock the Dock Concert Series in order to bring in
quality performers, do more radio/tv advertising, and for rack cards for the Washington State Ferries.
Downtown Bremerton Association
Requested $20,000
Recommended Allocation $20.000
WayzGoose Kitsap
The Downtown Bremerton Association is working towards bringing a new festival "WayzGoose
Kitsap" to Bremerton which is anticipated to overlap with the Blackberry Festival in 2018. This will
be a first of its kind event to be held on the west coast and will include a week long community festival
and conference. This type of event is expected to bring 300 attendees for the conference and about
5,000 visitors for the festival.
Partners include the Ladies of Letterpress, the Amalgamated Printers Association, and Green Drinks.
Funding would be used towards promotion and outreach for the event.
Kitsap Entrepreneurial Center
Requested $12,000
Recommended Allocation $12.000
Kitsap Harbor Festival
The Kitsap Entrepreneurial Center (KEC) supports marketing for the Kitsap Harbor Festival. The
festival drew approximately 11,000 people and between 1,200 to 1,500 visitors stayed overnight
during the Memorial Day weekend.
KEC advertises via flyers and ads throughout Kitsap and Seattle area, on board Washington State
Ferries, social media, website http://www.kitsapharborfestival.org, Go Boating and Sea magazines,
and street banners.
Numerous collaborations include the Fathoms of Fun Festival; Historic Ships Association; Visit Kitsap
Peninsula; Washington State Ferries; various Chambers of Commerce and local business associations;
Visit Kitsap Peninsula; and the Hampton Inn and Fairfield Inn.
Funding from the City of Bremerton would go directly to marketing of Kitsap Harbor Festival, event
planners, drawing entertainment, boosting advertising on social media and websites, and towards
expansion of historic vessel events.
Olympic College Foundation
Requested $10,000
Recommended Allocation $10.000
Kitsap Wine Festival
The Kitsap Wine Festival was previously coordinated by the Harrison Hospital Foundation. The
merger with CHI Franciscan caused an end to the partnership for the event and the Olympic College
Foundation will be coordinating the event in 2018. 589 people attended last year's festival with 2/3
coming from outside the area.
The event is advertised through West Sound Home and Garden magazine and through Visit Kitsap
Peninsula website, as well as on the event's website www.kitsapwinefestival.com. Partners include
the Kitsap Conference Center and Columbia Hospitality. There are plans on developing a "Sip and
Stay" overnight package with local hotels and restaurants, to feature the festival on Kitsap Sun's
"Bremerton Beat", and to extend the advertising reach to Jefferson, Clallam, Pierce, and King Counties.
Funding will be used towards marketing of the Kitsap Wine Festival.
Valentinetti Puppet Museum
Requested $7,000
Recommended Allocation $7.000
The Valentinetti Puppet Museum has a substantial collection of puppets from around the world, offers
special shows intended for children and a monthly puppet making workshop. Over 3,000 people visit
the museum each year. Shows have also been performed at Olympic College.
Partnerships include Visit Kitsap Peninsula, Turner Joy, Bremerton Chamber of Commerce, and
Downtown Business Association. The museum has been part of Ladies Night Out, Armed Forces Day
and St Patrick's Day Parades, Back to School events, Safe Trick or Treat, Winterfest.
Advertising is also found in Trip Advisor, Annual Kitsap County Guide, Macaroni Kids, and on social
media. More information is available at www.ectandnunnets.orer.
Funding from the City of Bremerton will be used towards marketing including a rack card.
Kitsap Pride Network
Requested $5,000
Recommended Allocation $5.000
Kitsap Pride Festival
The Kitsap Pride Network hosts a series of events spanning two weekends in July which include a Film
Fest held on Bainbridge Island followed by the Pride Party and Viva! Kitsap Pride held in Bremerton.
Kitsap Pride typically draws 2,500 attendees with about 15% from outside of the area.
Partners include the Downtown Bremerton Association, Hampton Inn, Visit Kitsap Peninsula, North
Kitsap Tourism Coalition, Washington State Ferries, and other pride based organizations. In order to
grow the event, the venue would likely be moved from Evergreen Rotary Park to downtown.
More information on Kitsap Pride maybe found at http_//kitsappride.org and on social media.
Funding will be used for marketing of the Kitsap Pride Festival.
West Sound Art & Music Association
Requested $5,000
Recommended Allocation $5.000
West Sound Ukelele Festival
The West Sound Art and Music Association hosted its 1St West Sound Ukulele Festival in October 2016
300 visitors were reported and with marketing now in place, it is anticipated that between 500 to 700
attendees will be in town for the festival this year.
Marketing will be targeted in the Seattle area through rack cards on Washington State Ferries, with
options for day or multi -day trips posted on Facebook and at www.westsoundartandmusic.or.
The WSAMA will be collaborating with the West Sound Arts Council, the Kitsap Conference Center and
Admiral Theatre for festival events and workshops.
Funding from the City of Bremerton would be used for marketing and for printing event programs and
rack cards, as well as venue and festival expenses.
Dominion Historical Workboat Association
Requested $4,000
Recommended Allocation $4,000
The Dominion Historical Workboat Association promotes education and maintains historic vessels
including the Dominion Tug LT -366 which is currently at the Bremerton Marina. During special events
alone, over 200 visitors came to the Marina and 75 visitors toured the vessel.
The DHWA partners with the Hampton and Fairfield Inns, Historic Ships Association, and participates
in the Kitsap Harbor Festival and Trawler Fest.
Links to hotels on its website at www.dominiontug.org and additional information at
http: //museumships.us/tug/dominion as well as social media.
Funding will be used to expand marketing the Dominion as part of the downtown destination for
maritime history and to promote Bremerton community.
Admiral Theatre Foundation
Requested $150,000
Recommended Allocation $150.000
The Admiral Theatre is owned by the City of Bremerton and operated by the Admiral Theatre
Foundation. The Foundation has an Operating Agreement for $90,000 per year through 2040. The
addendum to the agreement has a provision for $150,000 which expires at the end of this year. Their
request is to continue funding at this level for a 5 -year period through 2022. Should the City of
Bremerton not extend the addendum, then the funding for the Foundation would revert to $90,000 per
year starting in 2018.
Year-long events have drawn over 53,000 patrons with over 13,000 from outside Kitsap County.
The Admiral Theatre collaborates with the Downtown Bremerton Association, Chamber of Commerce,
Bremerton Central Lions, Kiwanis Club, Bremerton Community Theatre, Jewel Box Theatre, Kitsap
Forest Theater, Kitsap Bluejackets, Kitsap Pumas, and local restaurants.
Marketing is through printed materials, radio, videos, and on social media. More information maybe
found at www.admiraltheatre.ora/.
Funding would be used for operation and maintenance of the theatre and tourism promotion.
Kitsap Conference Center
Requested $250,000
Recommended Allocation $250.000
The Kitsap Conference Center is owned by the City of Bremerton and operated by Columbia
Hospitality.
Year-long events bring in over 31,000 attendees with over 9,100 from outside of the area. More
information is available at www.kitsal2conferencecenter.com/.
Funding would be used for operation of the conference center for a 5 -year period through 2022.
Kitsap Conference Center
Requested $95,000
Recommended Allocation $95.000
Funding would be dedicated to a one-time debt payment for the conference center in 2018.
Fund Reserve
Recommended Allocation $20.000
Following discussion regarding the applicants' requests, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee reached
consensus that the remaining unallocated revenue be carried over in the Fund Reserve in 2018.
LODGING TAX
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lodging Tax? RCW 67.28
The lodging tax, also referred to as the hotel -motel tax, is a consumer tax on lodging charges for
periods of less than 30 consecutive days for hotels, motels, rooming houses, private
campgrounds, RV parks, and similar facilities.
How Can the Lodging Tax Revenues Be Used?
The guiding principle for the use of lodging taxes is that they must be used for activities,
operations and expenditures designed to increase tourism. Specifically, lodging taxes can be
used for:
• Tourism marketing;
• Marketing and operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists;
• Operations and capital expenditures of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by a
municipality or a public facilities district; or
• Operations of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by nonprofit organizations
RCW 67.28.1816.
Note that, as of July 1, 2013, capital expenditures for tourism -related facilities owned by
nonprofit organizations are no longer permitted expenditures of lodging tax funds.
What is Included in Tourism Marketing and Operations?
It includes activities defined as "tourism promotion" in state law RCW 67.28.080.
• Advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting
and welcoming tourists;
• Developing strategies to expand tourism;
• Operating tourism promotion agencies; and
• Funding the marketing or operation of special events and festivals designed to attract
tourists.
What is a "Tourism -Related Facility"?
A tourism -related facility is a real or tangible personal property with a usable life of three or more
years, or constructed with volunteer labor that is (a) owned by a public entity, nonprofit
organization (including a non-profit business organization, destination marketing organization,
main street organization, lodging association, or chamber of commerce) and (b) used to support
tourism, performing arts, or to accommodate tourist activities RCW 67.28.080.
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) BMC 2.38
This committee must have at least five members, appointed by the governing body.
The committee membership must include at least two representatives of businesses that
are required to collect the lodging tax, at least two people who are involved in activities
that are authorized to be funded by this tax, and one elected city official who serves as
chairperson of the committee. The statute also provides that a person who is eligible
under the first category is not eligible for appointment under the second category, and
vice versa.
• Organizations representing hotels and motels and organizations involved in activities
that can be funded by this tax may recommend people for membership.
• The number of committee members from organizations representing the hotels and
motels and the number from organizations involved in activities that can be funded must
be equal.
• A city's committee may include a non-voting elected official and vice -versa.
• The governing body must review the membership of the committee annually.
Applications for Lodging Tax Funds
In counties or cities of at least 5,000 population, applications must be submitted directly to the
lodging tax advisory committee (LTAC). In counties or cities of less than 5,000, applications are
submitted to the county or city. The law is silent on how often the awards should be made.
Some jurisdictions choose to make awards as part of their annual budget cycle. Others also
make mid -year awards to account for unexpected increases or decreases in projected revenue.
Who Must Apply?
• Convention and visitors bureaus;
• Destination marketing organizations;
• Nonprofits, including main street organizations, lodging associations, or chambers of
commerce;
• Municipalities — The State Auditor's Office is interpreting the law to mean that all users of
funds, including municipalities, are considered applicants and must follow relevant
application procedures. So, cities and counties should submit applications for their own
projects to the LTAC.
What is Included in the Application?
All applications must include estimates of how funding the activity will result in increases to
people staying overnight, travelling 50 miles or more, or coming from another state or country.
To ensure this data is collected, jurisdictions should require this information on their lodging tax
application forms.
There is no requirement that priority for funding be given to applicants expected to generate the
most travelers, and lodging tax revenue may still be awarded to recipients who generate few of
these types of travelers.
Review and Selection of Applications
In a municipality of at least 5,000 population, the LTAC receives all applications for lodging tax
revenue and recommends a list of candidates and funding levels to the municipality's legislative
body for final determination. If a municipality under 5,000 chooses to establish a LTAC, they
may, but do not have to, follow these requirements.
What Does the Municipality Do with the LTAC's Recommendations?
The legislative body "may only choose recipients from the list of candidates and recommended
amounts provided by the local lodging tax advisory committee." However, a city or county does
not have to fund the full list as recommended by the LTAC and can choose to make awards in
the recommended amounts to all, some, or none of the candidates on this list. The selected
recipients must be awarded the amounts recommended by the LTAC.
Can the city council award more money to an applicant than the LTAC recommends?
No, a city council cannot award more funding to an applicant than the lodging tax advisory
committee recommends. The relevant statute, RCW 67.28.1816(1)(b)(ii), reads as follows:
The local lodging tax advisory committee must select the candidates from amongst the
applicants applying for use of revenues in this chapter and provide a list of such candidates and
recommended amounts of funding to the municipality for final determination. The municipality
may choose only recipients from the list of candidates and recommended amounts provided by
the local lodging tax advisory committee. Therefore, if a city chooses to award funding to a
particular recipient, then it is limited to the amount of funding recommended by the LTAC.
Contracts with Recipients of Lodging Tax Funds
Because of the state constitutional gift of public funds prohibition, a city or county should enter
into a contract with any private organization providing marketing services, operating special
events or festivals, or any other tourist promotion activity. The contract should spell out the
tourism -related services to be provided in exchange for city or county funding and what reports
will be required. Also, any organization doing promotion on behalf of the city or county may only
spend lodging tax funds on items that the city or county itself could fund. This prohibits, for
example, any expenditures on promotional hosting.
Reporting Requirements => Started in 2014 & Report Available at www. leg.wa.gov/
• All entities receiving lodging tax funds must provide information to their respective local
• government on their use of these funds as required by RCW 67.28.1816. This includes
local governments that directly use lodging tax funds for municipal purposes, such as
municipal facilities or community events. Local governments will then, in turn, report this
information annually to the Joint Legislative & Audit Review Committee (JLARC) using
their on-line reporting system.
• Local governments should, as part of their contract with recipients, require that the report
be provided immediately after the event or activity.
• The deadline for local governments to submit the annual data to JLARC is March 15 for
the year ending the previous December 31.
• JLARC does not provide advice on how to estimate tourism impacts. Good faith
estimates of actuals can be reported provided applicants and users of funds indicate
how those estimates will be developed. All information (including descriptions of how
actual impacts were estimated) will be available for public review.
• JLARC can be contacted for technical issues associated with the reporting portal by
emailing jlarc@leg.wa.gov
%MRSC
Material from www.mrsc.org & "Ask MRSC" Special Issue Newsletter dated July 13, 2016...
M R S C
Local Government Success;
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAQ
• This committee must have at least fine members, appointed by the governing body.
• The committee membership must include at least two representatives of businesses that
are required to collect the lodging tax, at least two people who are involved in activities
that are authorized to be funded by this tax, and one elected city official who serves as
chairperson of the committee- The statute also provides that a person who is eligible
under the first category is not eligible for appointment under the second category, and
vice versa-
• Organizations representing hotels and motels and organizations involved in activities that
can be funded by this tax may recommend people for membership -
The number of committee members from organizations representing the hotels and
motels and the number froim organizations involved in activities that can be funded must
be equal.
• A city's committee may include a non-voting elected county official and vice -versa-
• The governing body must review the membership of the committee annually -
In addition to reviewing applications for the use of the lodging tax, what
does the committee do?
Any proposal to impose a new lodging tax, raise the rate of an existing tax, repeal an
exemption from the lodging tax, or change the use of the tax proceeds, must be submitted
to the lodging tax advisory committee for review and comment-
• This submission must occur at least 45 days before final action will betaken on the
governing body's proposal- Even if the committee finishes its work before the 45 days are
up, the governing body still must wait 45 days.
• The committee's comments must include an analysis of the extent to which the proposal
will accommodate activities for tourists or increase tourism, and of the extent to which it
will affect the long -run stability of the fund to which the hotel -motel taxes are credited.
• If the advisory committee does not submit comments before the time that f inal action is
to be taken on the proposal, the governing may go ahead and take final action.
a
Y
N
O
O
N
pCp
O u
h
v o o .o
a
_ a a
E o c
v
w s
O E m " E
N
v m E
—
Vm
Y
om m o a 0
O
10 0
o m o m o 0
o m o 0 0 0
a.-i o ry ry m
ti
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o m o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o m o o m o
i o 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
' o0 0 m o 0o vi
i o 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
' oo vi vi vi ry
i o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
.ti m ti ti
0 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
' vi ri vi oo vi o
ry � ti ry ry
00
00
0 0
o�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
o m m
vi m a
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o ry o 0
vi ry vi vi vi o0
m
V
N E V O
U N N
od
E gI uv v° E
V
, a —' 2 v v a v
> o. Y Q _ V u v�
o N 1E > �y _ O - N — — , —
9u—o- voi m l7 ? v Y >
E O E �w Op. p v— Q
N V
V o a v N> 9 N a a
v
o o o v o N v a v c v—
r
` E r�o E Y E
a c o
9
v c u
� m 2 -
0
0
0 0
9 p
m rpp E o C
ry
o 0
UI
v u Ic
i? a >
u ow
u °' .Q.
m
o oo
0 0
a
y a
Y c
L
0 0
$ O
a W w w u
a Y
G Y H
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
m o0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
m � m
m
0 0 0
0 0 0
o � o
m a m
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 o vi
m o �
0 0 0
0 o m
m o �
0
0 0 0
ry
o vi m
m m o0
0 0 0
r
m
o 0 0
o 0 0
00
o vi m
a
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
o vi vi
m � a
m
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
o vi o
a
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
o vi vi
m
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
vi
o vi vi
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
vi
o vi �
m
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
m
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
�
o vi vi
m m o
ti a
0 0 0
0 0 0
o vi vi
m m
� a
0 0 0
0 0
o vi of
a c o
9
v c u
� m 2 -
`o E
N m
Y
9 p
m rpp E o C
v
V
2 O — p. � O
w d` o
a
UI
v u Ic
i? a >
u ow
u °' .Q.
m
o oo
U UI
o @
a
y a
Y c
L
—
E
$ O
a W w w u
a Y
G Y H
O
2
2
ADMIRAL
T HEATRE Received I o �/�rton City Council Affloe
EST. 1942
City Council
City of Bremerton
DCD/Block Grant
345 — 6th Street #600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Bremerton City Council,
We are pleased that the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has recommended a $150,000 award to the
Admiral Theatre for the coming year. We thank you in advance for this award.
We would like the city council address and amend our lease agreement with the city to have this $150,000 -
annual award extended permanently. We believe the Admiral Theatre has demonstrated a strong
commitment to the goals of the city and been proven a key player in the economic development of the
downtown area.
We are quite proud of our efforts and feel our accomplishment merit the $150,000 investment by the city
from its lodging tax funds on an annual basis.
And we are investing in the theatre as well. As you know, we maintain complete responsibility for all
operational costs associated with running the theatre. But in addition to the excellent management of
operational costs we have chosen this year to invest $1.2 -million in capital investments needed to sustain
the theatre into its next 20 years.
The city's $150,000 annual investment returns so much in tax dollars, overnight guests, downtown
vibrancy, and retail stimualtion because of our presence. New investments by developers and businesses
are building on the foundation we have helped establish downtown. This has been a great partnership
between the city and the Admiral Theatre that we want to continue to provide economic dividends for us
both.
Here are some recent statistics to help reinforce our request:
• Admiral Theatre invests $1.2 -million in the city -owned theatre in 2017
• Admiral Theatre brings 53,913 patrons to the theatre in 2015-2016 fiscal year
• The theatre attracted 13,130 patrons from outside Kitsap County during our 2016-2017 season
• Admiral Theatre economic impact created 73 fulltime jobs, $79,300 in local government revenues,
$96,089 in state government revenues
• School Day performances provide arts education to area schools
• Summer camp program provides arts training for 80 students each year
We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to our continuing partnership with the
city.
Brian Johnson, Executive Director
ADMIRALTHEATRE.ORG
ADMIN OFFICE 360.373.6810 1 BOX OFFICE 360.373.6743 1 FAX 360.405.0673
515 PACIFIC AVENUE, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98337