The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/22/2019 STUDY SESSION PACKET______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280 * * * AMENDED * * * MAY 22, 2019 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 The Study Session is open to the public, and except for Item A3, there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no action is anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by Council, the items will be placed on the June 5, 2019 Council Meeting Agenda: A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA ITEMS 1. Ordinance No. 5367 amending Ordinance No. 5360 relating to the City of Bremerton Fiscal Year 2019 Budget 2. Ordinance adding new Chapter 6.20 to the Bremerton Municipal Code regulating the Distribution of Single-use Plastic and Biodegradable Carryout Bags 3. Interlocal Agreement with Mason County for Road and Street Chip Seal Maintenance Services Action anticipated… 4. Amendment No. 1 to Goods & Services Agreement with S. Varick Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance and Services 5. Equipment Services Building Addition Project Agreement with DP Wain Construction, Inc. 6. Acceptance of US Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grant; and Approval of the Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Washington Avenue & 11th Street Roundabout Project 7. Agreement with Pape & Sons Construction, Inc. for the 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW -4 Replacement Project 8. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance amending the Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code related to "Manufactured Homes" and "Group Residential Facilities" B. INFORMATION BRIEFING 1. Discussion on Streets & Sidewalks – City Engineer Tom Knuckey; and Public Works Operations Manager Milenka Hawkins-Bates C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Finance, Investment & Parking Committee Briefing (05/20/19 Special Meeting) – Chair Michael Goodnow o Public Works Committee Briefing (05/21/19 Meeting) – Chair Kevin Gorman o Audit Committee Briefing (05/21/19 Special Meeting) – Chair Leslie Daugs o Other General Council Business D. EXECUTIVE SESSION – 20-Minutes to discuss a Real Estate Acquisition as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1)(b); and Potential Litigation as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1)(I) No action is anticipated... E. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION Immediately following adjournment of the Study Session, an EXEMPT CLOSED SESSION allowed under RCW 42.30.140 (4) (b), will be held to discuss Labor Negotiations or Proceedings… 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. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5367 amending Ordinance No. 5360 relating to the City of Bremerton Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Caroline Tompson Phone: (360) 473-5209 SUMMARY: Each year the City assesses its current fiscal year budget for any needed adjustments. Adjustments are recommended for the following reasons: to adjust the estimated beginning fund balances to actual, to account for unanticipated/unexpected conditions, to incorporate 2018 carryover items, and to adjust for previously approved Council motions/resolutions etc. The attached ordinance and supporting documents outlines the various reasons for the current proposed budget amendment. ATTACHMENTS:  Ordinance No. 5367 to Amend Ordinance No. 5360 adopting the 2019 Budget  Exhibit A  Exhibit B  2019 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Memo  Detail fund listing identifying proposed line item and budget control category adjustments FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The net adjustment for all City Funds for the Fiscal Year 2019 is $15,841,277 for a total expenditure appropriation of $179,394,258. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5367 amending Ordinance No. 5360 relating to the City of Bremerton Fiscal Year 2019 Budget; and further authorize identified staffing adjustments. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A1 1 2019 Mid-Year Budget Amendment ORDINANCE NO. 5367___ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Ordinance No. 5360 relating to the City of Bremerton Fiscal Year 2019 Budget. WHEREAS, the City Council passed the Fiscal Year 2019 City Budget Ordinance No. 5360 on November 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously amended the budget by various motions and resolutions subsequent to November 20, 2018 which require a formal amendment by ordinance; and WHEREAS, all of the funds of the City of Bremerton require amendment to adjust beginning fund balances; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds are experiencing or anticipate additional expenses due to factors such as costs related to provision of contracted services and changed allocations of staff time; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds require adjustment to revenues to reflect activity in 2019 or timing changes from that which was anticipated in the 2019 budget; and WHEREAS, certain reclassifications of revenues and expenditures are required to properly reflect budget categories in a manner consistent with actuals in accordance with BMC 3.02.010; and WHEREAS, each of these actions has an impact on the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Budget resulting in the need to amend this Budget document; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 5360 establishing the City of Bremerton’s 2019 Budget is hereby amended as follows; 1) regular revenues and unencumbered fund balances of $179,394,258, the total for each fund as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and 2) in accordance with BMC 3.02.010, expenditures and ending fund balances of $179,394,258 as set forth in Exhibit A, and authoring staffing adjustments as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2 2019 Mid-Year Budget Amendment SECTION 2. That the totals for the funds noted in Exhibit A are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2019. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2019 _________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2019 ________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA WOODS, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2019 EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. ______ BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2019 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 00 0139,001 00139,001 Executive 00 0131,511 00131,511 Financial Services 00 0740,912 00740,912 Legal 00 0537,546 00537,546 Human Resources 00 0249,199 00249,199 Community Development 3,284,250 1,075,800 200,000 461,500 50,000 0 5,071,550 Municipal Court 0018,857 199,900 259,250 32,045 510,052 City Auditor 00 032,178 0032,178 Law Enforcement 0 6,500 218,130 159,100 2,000 11,000 396,730 Fire/Emergency Medical 1,301,697 1,550 745,368 670,350 6,000 5,010 2,729,975 Police & Fire Pension 0062,341 00 062,341 General Facilities 00 0176,281 0 522,100 698,381 Parks 0 200 15,000 254,000 0 70,900 340,100 Engineering 0 49,000 0 1,755,647 001,804,647 Non-Departmental 28,209,505 27,000 845,450 92,044 800,000 106,100 30,080,099 Beginning Fund Balance 11,194,478 11,194,478 Total General Fund 11,194,478 32,795,452 1,160,050 2,105,146 5,599,169 1,117,250 747,155 54,718,700 Special Revenue Funds: Street 776,300 750,000 0 910,015 95,000 0 994,100 3,525,415 Contingency Reserve 1,298,269 0000042,975 1,341,244 Lodging Tax 474,660 650,000 00004,000 1,128,660 Parking System 836,009 0000425,000 1,443,000 2,704,009 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 41,612 00723,904 45,919 0 79,500 890,935 Abatement Revolving Fund 284,278 000025,000 500 309,778 Police Special Projects 328,762 000015,000 3,500 347,262 Public Access Television 686,503 0 273,000 0 123,047 0 54,600 1,137,150 Gift & Donations Fund 86,226 0000011,200 97,426 Trial Improvement 72,932 0022,000 00500 95,432 One Percent for Arts 29,263 00 011,500 0 3,700 44,463 Conference Center Oper 224,931 00 01,498,846 0 493,695 2,217,472 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 5,139,745 1,400,000 273,000 1,655,919 1,774,312 465,000 3,131,270 13,839,246 Debt Service Fund: 2010 LTGO 173,200 330,000 0 101,040 0076,500 680,740 2010 UTGO/LTGO (B)103,523 780,000 0 29,975 00174,000 1,087,498 Government Center LTGO 77,385 00000341,500 418,885 2015 Public Safety Bond 55,715 480,000 00001,000 536,715 Total Debt Service Fund 409,823 1,590,000 0 131,015 0 0 593,000 2,723,838 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv. 2,739,879 1,800,000 000020,000 4,559,879 Park Facilities Construction 223,748 0000062,250 285,998 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 1,142,106 1,017,379 125,000 000107,000 2,391,485 Transportation Projects Fund 948,353 417,379 0 3,465,581 001,489,769 6,321,082 Fire Public Safety Capital 1,080,815 000005,000 1,085,815 Lebo Blvd Fund 234,454 000003,546 238,000 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 00000101,104 101,104 Total Capital Improv. Funds 6,369,355 3,234,758 125,000 3,465,581 0 0 1,788,669 14,983,363 Total General Gov't Funds 23,113,401 39,020,210 1,558,050 7,357,661 7,373,481 1,582,250 6,260,094 86,265,147 2019 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. 5367 Exhibit A 1 BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2019 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET 2019 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. 5367 Exhibit A Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 3,989,773 00 013,910,775 50,000 543,000 18,493,548 Water Capital 5,413,252 000004,484,966 9,898,218 Wastewater Utility 2,250,449 102,000 0015,915,450 18,000 47,000 18,332,899 Wastewater Capital 10,358,795 000002,917,339 13,276,134 Stormwater Utility 634,803 0023,000 4,130,288 10,000 10,500 4,808,591 Stormwater Capital 3,942,176 00101,000 002,101,209 6,144,385 Utility Debt Reserve 1,649,795 0000014,500 1,664,295 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 285,095 00 04,429,730 0 16,500 4,731,325 Total Enterprise Funds 28,524,138 102,000 0 124,000 38,386,243 78,000 10,135,014 77,349,395 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 2,731,265 000001,847,336 4,578,601 Employment Security 317,510 000004,000 321,510 Accumulated Leave Liability 163,047 00000543,000 706,047 ER&R Operations & Maint.78,894 00 01,868,227 0 3,000 1,950,121 ER&R Equipment Reserve 4,423,572 000001,464,550 5,888,122 Information Services 406,306 00 01,676,009 0 253,000 2,335,315 Total Internal Service Funds 8,120,594 0 0 0 3,544,236 0 4,114,886 15,779,716 Total Business Type Funds 36,644,732 102,000 0 124,000 41,930,479 78,000 14,249,900 93,129,111 Total All Funds 59,758,133 39,122,210 1,558,050 7,481,661 49,303,960 1,660,250 20,509,994 179,394,258 2 1/0/1900 2019 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 323,600 58,287 000 381,887 Executive 283,200 75,618 000 358,818 Financial Services 1,255,200 306,640 000 1,561,840 Legal Department 1,292,900 247,078 000 1,539,978 Human Resources 486,800 199,821 000 686,621 Community Development 1,678,300 623,242 0075,000 2,376,542 Municipal Court 939,396 546,943 000 1,486,339 City Auditor 81,300 8,085 000 89,385 Law Enforcement 10,121,200 1,704,452 000 11,825,652 Fire/Emergency Medical 9,471,200 1,185,919 000 10,657,119 Police & Fire Pension 1,350,000 347,700 000 1,697,700 General Facilities 484,700 1,177,921 0 180,000 0 1,842,621 General Parks 2,276,781 815,501 000 3,092,282 Engineering 2,328,300 351,880 000 2,680,180 Non-Departmental 155,000 3,565,096 001,417,179 5,137,275 Ending Fund Balance 9,304,461 9,304,461 Total General Fund 32,527,877 11,214,183 0 180,000 1,492,179 9,304,461 54,718,700 Special Revenue Funds: Street 1,461,350 1,835,674 0 20,000 0 208,391 3,525,415 Contingency Reserve 000001,341,244 1,341,244 Lodging Tax 0 479,000 00350,000 299,660 1,128,660 Parking System 0 1,153,973 523,408 65,000 171,500 790,128 2,704,009 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 147,100 280,811 00412,913 50,111 890,935 Abatement Revolving Fund 0 57,500 000252,278 309,778 Police Special Projects 0 115,700 0 60,000 0 171,562 347,262 Public Access Television 385,000 72,140 0 100,000 0 580,010 1,137,150 Gift & Donations Fund 0 22,000 00075,426 97,426 Trial Improvement 0 26,000 00069,432 95,432 One Percent for Arts 0 18,000 00026,463 44,463 Conference Center Oper 0 1,891,412 100,000 00226,060 2,217,472 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 1,993,450 5,952,210 623,408 245,000 934,413 4,090,765 13,839,246 Debt Service Fund: 2010 LTGO 00532,766 00147,974 680,740 2010 UTGO/LTGO (B)001,053,302 0034,196 1,087,498 Government Center LTGO 00335,263 0083,622 418,885 2015 Public Safety Bond 00499,100 0037,615 536,715 Total Debt Service Fund 0 0 2,420,431 0 0 303,407 2,723,838 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv.00002,124,556 2,435,323 4,559,879 Park Facilities Construction 0 39,500 0 65,000 0 181,498 285,998 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 358,100 406,242 0 445,000 0 1,182,143 2,391,485 Transportation Projects Fund 0 983,984 0 4,350,535 0 986,563 6,321,082 Fire Public Safety Capital 000981,531 0 104,284 1,085,815 Lebo Blvd Fund 0000238,000 0 238,000 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 100,000 0001,104 101,104 Total Capital Improv. Funds 358,100 1,529,726 0 5,842,066 2,362,556 4,890,915 14,983,363 Total General Gov't Funds 34,879,427 18,696,119 3,043,839 6,267,066 4,789,148 18,589,548 86,265,147 2019 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. 5367 Exhibit A 3 1/0/1900 2019 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET 2019 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. 5367 Exhibit A Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 4,598,700 7,783,663 965,121 0 3,544,366 1,601,698 18,493,548 Water Capital 0004,526,279 0 5,371,939 9,898,218 Wastewater Utility 3,448,000 8,535,526 2,557,688 0 2,046,739 1,744,946 18,332,899 Wastewater Capital 0008,855,000 0 4,421,134 13,276,134 Stormwater Utility 1,467,776 2,282,954 154,575 0 434,649 468,637 4,808,591 Stormwater Capital 0003,195,747 0 2,948,638 6,144,385 Utility Debt Reserve 000001,664,295 1,664,295 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 0 4,012,267 436,230 00282,828 4,731,325 Total Enterprise Funds 9,514,476 22,614,410 4,113,614 16,577,026 6,025,754 18,504,115 77,349,395 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 340,000 1,548,491 0002,690,110 4,578,601 Employment Security 40,000 0000281,510 321,510 Accumulated Leave Liability 400,000 0000306,047 706,047 ER&R Operations & Maint 543,900 1,352,047 00054,174 1,950,121 ER&R Equipment Reserves 0 2,761 0 1,910,708 0 3,974,653 5,888,122 Information Services 903,300 823,326 000608,689 2,335,315 Total Internal Service Funds 2,227,200 3,726,625 0 1,910,708 0 7,915,183 15,779,716 Total Business Type Funds 11,741,676 26,341,035 4,113,614 18,487,734 6,025,754 26,419,298 93,129,111 Total All Funds 46,621,103 45,037,154 7,157,453 24,754,800 10,814,902 45,008,846 179,394,258 4 Department Position Action Authorized Staffing Per 2019 Budget 363.38 Regular FTEs Sub-Total 0.00 Part-Time & Seasonal FTE by Department Legal - Regular Part-Time Extra Help Increase Staffing 0.50 Sub-Total 0.50 Amended 2019 Authorized Staffing 363.88 FTE Change City of Bremerton Authorized Staffing Exhibit B Amended by Ordinance No. 5367 1 Memorandum To: City Council Mayor Greg Wheeler From: Caroline Tompson, Budget Analyst Re: 2019 Mid-Year Budget Amendment, Ordinance No. 5367 Date: May 22, 2019 The City adopted the 2019 budget by Ordinance No. 5360 on November 20, 2018. Each year the City assesses its current fiscal year budget and addresses any needed adjustments that have come to the attention of the staff in Financial Services. Adjustments for both revenue and expenditures are brought forward for the following reasons: to adjust the estimated beginning fund balances to actual, to account for subsequent unanticipated/unexpected conditions, to account for previously approved projects that were underway in 2018 that were not concluded and require carryover expenditure authority, to reallocate revenue and expenditure line items within budget control categories with zero net increase, and to formally account for various council motions/resolutions previously approved to date during 2019. Enclosed is the mid-year budget amendment ordinance and detailed supporting schedules. Noteworthy items not previously approved by Council, and/or are significant, are as follows: General Fund  The actual beginning fund balance was higher than anticipated by $1,977,883. The additional reserves came from $699,174 in additional revenue and a $1,278,709 savings in expenditures throughout all departments within the General Fund.  The Financial Services budget includes a $25,000 increase in supplies for additional banking fees associated with an increase in credit card transactions.  The professional services line item in Legal requires a budget adjustment in the amount of $75,000 for ongoing expenditures associated with the EPA CERCLA and additional outside legal counsel.  A $250,000 transfer from the General Fund Non-Departmental budget to the Information Technology Fund is included in this amendment as a set-a-side for the anticipated Police I-Leads replacement software. The existing system is no longer supported and will be replaced in 2020 with an estimated cost of $2 million shared between six entities. The City’s cost share is estimated between $300,000 and $400,000 in 2020. Information Technology will be coordinating the transition to the new system. 2  The Non-Departmental Budget includes an additional $97,100 transfer-out to the Street Fund. The additional funding is necessary to cover the cost of the February snow and ice removal and subsequent street and sidewalk clean-up.  The 2019 Non-Departmental budget included $456,000 in set-a-side personnel costs for pending labor negotiations. The budget amendment reallocates $301,000 of that set-a-side to various departments within the General Fund. Other Funds  As mentioned above, the Street Fund includes a $97,100 increase in both personnel and supplies for the costs associated with snow and ice removal. The expenditure is funded by a transfer-in from the General Fund.  Due to an increase in available funding, the transfer-out from CDBG to the Transportation Capital Projects Fund was increase by $32,505 for the ADA Curb Ramps and Sidewalk Project.  The Risk Management Fund includes an additional $50,000 in expenditure appropriations due to unforeseen and unexpected medical expenses.  Similar to the General Fund, a total adjustment of $325,700 in personnel is budgeted throughout nine funds to account for additional negotiated labor costs. Budget adjustments are necessary to properly reflect the nature and extent of revenues and expenditures of the various City funds and departments. The attached ordinance and supporting schedules (by fund) include adjustments by budget control category for both revenues and expenditures with a City-wide appropriation, including fund balance, of $179,394,258. CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 8,891,627 $ 8,891,627 $- Retail Sales 9,600,000 9,600,000 - Other 14,303,825 14,303,825 - Licenses and Permits 1,160,050 1,160,050 - Intergovernmental 2,105,146 2,105,146 - Charges for Services 5,599,169 5,599,169 - Fines and Forfeitures 1,117,250 1,117,250 - Miscellaneous 274,510 281,155 6,645 Transfers In & Other Financing 466,000 466,000 - Total Revenues 43,517,577 43,524,222 6,645 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 32,514,077 32,527,877 13,800 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 11,099,056 11,214,183 115,127 Capital Expenditures 180,000 180,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 1,145,079 1,492,179 347,100 Total Expenditures 44,938,212 45,414,239 476,027 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (1,420,635) (1,890,017) (469,382) Fund Balances-beginning 9,216,595 11,194,478 1,977,883 Fund Balances-ending $7,795,960 $9,304,461 $1,508,501 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT City Council $ 376,187 381,887 $ 5,700 Executive 355,918 358,818 2,900 Financial Services 1,505,740 1,561,840 56,100 Legal Department 1,419,378 1,539,978 120,600 Human Resources 674,421 686,621 12,200 Community Development 2,334,742 2,376,542 41,800 Municipal Court 1,460,412 1,486,339 25,927 City Auditor 87,085 89,385 2,300 Police Department 11,794,552 11,825,652 31,100 Fire Department 10,648,819 10,657,119 8,300 Police & Fire Pension 1,697,700 1,697,700 - General Facilities 1,830,521 1,842,621 12,100 Parks & Recreation 3,041,282 3,092,282 51,000 Engineering 2,620,280 2,680,180 59,900 Non-Departmental 5,091,175 5,137,275 46,100 Total Expenditures $44,938,212 $45,414,239 $476,027 Per the City's Financial Goals and Policies, the target ending fund balance is 8.5% of annual expenditures excluding capital. The target fund balance for the 2019 budget, as amended, is $3,844,910. The actual ending fund balance after the proposed amendments is $9,304,461 which is higher than the target amount by $5,459,551. The 2019 budget as proposed, includes an ending fund balance which exceeds the target, and is increased from the previously adopted budget by $1,508,501. The financial planning goal is to maintain an ending fund balance recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of 16.67%, or $7,540,548. The proposed budget with amendments, meets this recommendation. FUND 001 1 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel in Legal for the addition of a .50 FTE (16,800) Expenditure - Increase supplies under professional services for Engineering Standards update (carryover)(5,000) Expenditure - Decrease personnel in Non-Departmental for negotiated personnel expenses allocated to departments 301,000 Expenditure - Increase personnel in Council for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (5,700) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Executive for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (2,900) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Finance for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (31,100) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Legal for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (28,800) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Human Resources for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (12,200) Expenditure - Increase personnel in DCD for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (41,800) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Municipal Court for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (18,800) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Auditor for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (2,300) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Police for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (31,100) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Fire for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (8,300) Expenditure - Increase personnel in General Facilities for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (12,100) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Parks for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (51,000) Expenditure - Increase personnel in Engineering for allocation of negotiated personnel expenses (54,900) Expenditure - Increase supplies in Legal for additional outside legal counsel (75,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies in Finance for additional banking fees associated with credit cards (25,000) Revenue - Increase miscellaneous in Court computer/equipment funding by Office of Administrative Courts 6,645 Expenditure - Increase supplies in Court for computers/equipment (7,127) Expenditure - Decrease personnel in DCD (Tax and License) and reallocate to supplies (3,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies in DCD (Tax and License) for unanticipated office equipment 3,000 Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to IT for set-a-side associated with I-Leads replacement software purchase (250,000) Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Street Fund to cover the cost of snow and ice removal (97,100) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (469,382) Items Previously Approved by Council or Finance Committee New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 001 2 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STREET FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 750,000 750,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental (fuel tax)910,015 910,015 - Charges for Services 95,000 95,000 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 20,500 20,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 876,500 973,600 97,100 Total Revenues 2,652,015 2,749,115 97,100 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,350,550 1,461,350 110,800 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,815,174 1,835,674 20,500 Capital Expenditures 20,000 20,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 3,185,724 3,317,024 131,300 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (533,709) (567,909) (34,200) Fund Balances-beginning 627,600 776,300 148,700 Fund Balances-ending $93,891 $208,391 $114,500 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (34,200) Expenditure - Increase personnel for cost associated with snow and ice removal (76,600) Expenditure - Increase supplies for cost associated with snow and ice removal (20,500) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from General Fund for snow and ice removal 97,100 Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (34,200) New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 102 3 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 14,000 14,000 - Transfers-in & Other Revenue 28,975 28,975 - Total Revenues 42,975 42,975 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures - - - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 42,975 42,975 - Fund Balances-beginning 1,294,031 1,298,269 4,238 Fund Balances-ending $1,337,006 $1,341,244 $4,238 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 103 4 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE LODGING TAX FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other (hotel/motel tax)650,000 650,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 4,000 4,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 654,000 654,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 479,000 479,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 350,000 350,000 - Total Expenditures 829,000 829,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (175,000) (175,000) - Fund Balances-beginning 448,529 474,660 26,131 Fund Balances-ending $273,529 $299,660 $26,131 Budget Adjustments: Net adjust to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 104 5 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PARKING SYSTEM FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 425,000 425,000 - Miscellaneous 1,443,000 1,443,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 1,868,000 1,868,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,100,200 1,153,973 53,773 Capital Expenditures - 65,000 65,000 Debt Service 523,408 523,408 - Transfers Out 171,500 171,500 - Total Expenditures 1,795,108 1,913,881 118,773 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 72,892 (45,881) (118,773) Fund Balances-beginning 703,981 836,009 132,028 Fund Balances-ending $776,873 $790,128 $13,255 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for parking management software system (iPark)(53,773) Expenditure - Increase capital for LPR associated with parking management system (iPark)(65,000) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $(118,773) New Items Not Previously Approved by Council New Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 105 6 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $- Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 727,000 723,904 (3,096) Charges for Services - 45,919 45,919 Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 4,500 4,500 - Transfers in 75,000 75,000 - Total Revenues 806,500 849,323 42,823 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 143,600 147,100 3,500 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 283,907 280,811 (3,096) Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 287,500 412,913 125,413 Total Expenditures 715,007 840,824 125,817 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 91,493 8,499 (82,994) Fund Balances-beginning 229,334 41,612 (187,722) Fund Balances-ending $320,827 $50,111 $(270,716) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase transfer out to Transportation Capital Fund for carryover of Quincy Square (92,908) Revenue - Decrease intergovernmental due to reduced HUD award (3,096) Expenditure - Decrease supplies and services due to reduction in Coffee Oasis contract award 3,096 Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (3,500) Revenue - Increase charges for services revenue for loan payoff fees 45,919 Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Transportation Capital Fund for add'l curb ramp and sidewalks (32,505) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (82,994) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 106 7 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ABATEMENT REVOLVING FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 25,000 25,000 - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 25,500 25,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 57,500 57,500 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 57,500 57,500 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (32,000) (32,000) - Fund Balances-beginning 258,885 284,278 25,393 Fund Balances-ending $226,885 $252,278 $25,393 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ 0 Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 108 8 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE POLICE SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 15,000 15,000 - Miscellaneous 3,500 3,500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 18,500 18,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 115,700 115,700 - Capital Expenditures 60,000 60,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 175,700 175,700 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (157,200) (157,200) - Fund Balances-beginning 316,037 328,762 12,725 Fund Balances-ending $158,837 $171,562 $12,725 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 110 9 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION OPERATIONS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $- Sales - - - Other (city PEG fees)- - - Licenses and Permits 273,000 273,000 - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 123,047 123,047 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 54,600 54,600 - Transfers in & Other - - - Total Revenues 450,647 450,647 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 378,300 385,000 6,700 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 72,140 72,140 - Capital Expenditures 100,000 100,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 550,440 557,140 6,700 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (99,793) (106,493) (6,700) Fund Balances-beginning 672,468 686,503 14,035 Fund Balances-ending $572,675 $580,010 $7,335 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (6,700) . Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (6,700) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 113 10 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GIFT AND DONATION FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 8,200 11,200 3,000 Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 8,200 11,200 3,000 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 19,000 22,000 3,000 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 19,000 22,000 3,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (10,800) (10,800) - Fund Balances-beginning 81,773 86,226 4,453 Fund Balances-ending $70,973 $75,426 $4,453 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Increase miscellaneous for a donation designated for Fire CPR/Rescue Manikins 3,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies for Fire CPR/Rescue Manikins (3,000) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 114 11 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRIAL IMPROVEMENT FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 22,000 22,000 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 22,500 22,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 26,000 26,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 26,000 26,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (3,500) (3,500) - Fund Balances-beginning 71,721 72,932 1,211 Fund Balances-ending $68,221 $69,432 $1,211 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 116 12 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ONE PERCENT FOR ARTS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 11,500 11,500 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,700 3,700 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 15,200 15,200 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 18,000 18,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 18,000 18,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (2,800) (2,800) - Fund Balances-beginning 26,111 29,263 3,152 Fund Balances-ending $23,311 $26,463 $3,152 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 117 13 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CONFERENCE CENTER OPERATIONS For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 1,498,846 1,498,846 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 4,000 4,000 - Transfers In & Other Revenue 459,000 489,695 30,695 Total Revenues 1,961,846 1,992,541 30,695 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,860,717 1,891,412 30,695 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 100,000 100,000 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,960,717 1,991,412 30,695 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 1,129 1,129 - Fund Balances-beginning 38,496 224,931 186,435 Fund Balances-ending $39,625 $226,060 $186,435 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for carryover or major maintenance not completed in 2018 (30,695) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from REET for carryover of major maintenance 30,695 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 120 14 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2010 LTGO For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales 330,000 330,000 - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 101,040 101,040 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 - Transfers in 75,000 75,000 - Total Revenues 507,540 507,540 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 532,766 532,766 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 532,766 532,766 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (25,226) (25,226) - Fund Balances-beginning 316,222 173,200 (143,022) Fund Balances-ending $290,996 $147,974 $(143,022) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 203 15 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2010 UTGO/LTGO (B) For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 780,000 $ 780,000 $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 29,975 29,975 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 2,500 2,500 - Transfers in 171,500 171,500 - Total Revenues 983,975 983,975 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 1,053,302 1,053,302 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,053,302 1,053,302 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (69,327) (69,327) - Fund Balances-beginning 97,481 103,523 6,042 Fund Balances-ending $28,154 $34,196 $6,042 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 204 16 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENT CENTER LTGO For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 340,000 340,000 - Total Revenues 341,500 341,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 335,263 335,263 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 335,263 335,263 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 6,237 6,237 - Fund Balances-beginning 76,244 77,385 1,141 Fund Balances-ending $82,481 $83,622 $1,141 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 205 17 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2015 PUBLIC SAFETY BOND FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $- Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 481,000 481,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 499,100 499,100 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 499,100 499,100 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (18,100) (18,100) - Fund Balances-beginning 53,410 55,715 2,305 Fund Balances-ending $ 35,310 $ 37,615 $ 2,305 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $- New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 206 18 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $- $- Sales - - - Other (Real Estate Excise Taxes)1,800,000 1,800,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 20,000 20,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 1,820,000 1,820,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 1,976,007 2,124,556 148,549 Total Expenditures 1,976,007 2,124,556 148,549 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (156,007) (304,556) (148,549) Fund Balances-beginning 2,478,370 2,739,879 261,509 Fund Balances-ending $2,322,363 $2,435,323 $112,960 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Conference Center for carryover major maintenance items not completed in 2018 (30,695) Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Transportation Capital Fund for 6th St Preservation Project grant match (51,650) Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Transportation Capital Fund for East 11th St. & Perry Ave. Reconstruction (design)(66,204) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $(148,549) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 308 19 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PARK FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in & Other Revenue 39,500 62,250 22,750 Total Revenues 39,500 62,250 22,750 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - 39,500 39,500 Capital Expenditures 39,500 65,000 25,500 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 39,500 104,500 65,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances - (42,250) (42,250) Fund Balances-beginning 97,585 223,748 126,163 Fund Balances-ending $97,585 $181,498 $83,913 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Increase miscellaneous revenue for Vertical Bridge tower lease payments 22,750 Expenditure - Decrease capital and reallocate to supplies for technical correction (Evergreen Park ADA)39,500 Expenditure - Increase supplies reallocated from capital due to technical correction (39,500) Expenditure - Increase capital for Manette Park Project not completed in 2018 (carryover)(65,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (42,250) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 310 20 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE RESIDENTIAL STREET CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 1,017,379 1,017,379 - Licenses and Permits 125,000 125,000 - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 7,000 7,000 - Transfers in 100,000 100,000 - Total Revenues 1,249,379 1,249,379 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 348,100 358,100 10,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 406,242 406,242 - Capital Expenditures 445,000 445,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,199,342 1,209,342 10,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 50,037 40,037 (10,000) Fund Balances-beginning 1,278,778 1,142,106 (136,672) Fund Balances-ending $1,328,815 $1,182,143 $(146,672) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (10,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (10,000) Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 314 21 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 417,379 417,379 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 2,748,545 3,465,581 717,036 Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,000 80,000 77,000 Transfers in 1,199,007 1,409,769 210,762 Total Revenues 4,367,931 5,372,729 1,004,798 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 782,500 983,984 201,484 Capital Expenditures 3,563,140 4,350,535 787,395 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 4,345,640 5,334,519 988,879 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 22,291 38,210 15,919 Fund Balances-beginning 1,703,278 948,353 (754,925) Fund Balances-ending $1,725,569 $986,563 $(739,006) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for ILA with Kitsap Co. for portion of Anderson Hill chip seal project (80,000) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from REET for 6th St. Preservation Phase 1 & 2 design grant match 51,650 Revenue - Increase intergovernmental grant revenue from PSRC for 6th St Preservation Phase 1 & 2 207,504 Expenditure - Increase capital for 6th St. Preservation Project Phase 1 & 2 design (222,734) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental for E 11th St/Perry Ave Proj design - TIB ($411,996) & DOE ($50,000) 461,996 Revenue - Increase transfer-in from REET for E 11th St & Perry Ave Reconstruction Project 66,204 Expenditure - Increase capital for E 11th St. & Perry Ave Reconstruction Project (528,200) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from CDBG for Quincy Square Project (carryover)92,908 Expenditure - Increase capital for Quincy Square Project (carryover)(36,461) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental for SR303 Corridor Study (carryover)47,536 Expenditure - Increase supplies for professional services associated with SR303 Corridor Study (carryover) (44,484) Revenue - Increase miscellaneous for Kitsap Transit Schedule 74 undergrounding 77,000 Expenditure Increase supplies and services for Kitsap Transit Schedule 74 undergrounding (77,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 15,919 Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 315 22 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $- $- Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 5,000 5,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 981,531 981,531 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 981,531 981,531 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (976,531) (976,531) - Fund Balances-beginning 976,531 1,080,815 104,284 Fund Balances-ending $- $ 104,284 $ 104,284 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $- Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 316 23 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE LEBO BLVD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $- $- Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - 3,546 3,546 Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues - 3,546 3,546 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - 238,000 238,000 Total Expenditures - 238,000 238,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances - (234,454) (234,454) Fund Balances-beginning - 234,454 234,454 Fund Balances-ending $- $- $- Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase transfer-out of remaining excess funds to Stormwater Capital Fund (238,000) Revenue - Increase miscellaneous revenue for interest earnings 3,546 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $(234,454) Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 317 24 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in 101,104 101,104 - Total Revenues 101,104 101,104 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - 100,000 100,000 Capital Expenditures 100,000 - (100,000) Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 100,000 100,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 1,104 1,104 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital - - - Fund Balances-ending working capital $1,104 $1,104 $- Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Decrease capital and reallocate to supplies (technical correction)100,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies (technical correction)(100,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $0 New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 318 25 City of Bremerton 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 13,910,775 13,910,775 - Fines and Forfeitures 50,000 50,000 - Miscellaneous 543,000 543,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 14,503,775 14,503,775 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 4,492,700 4,598,700 106,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 7,741,522 7,783,663 42,141 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 965,121 965,121 - Transfers Out 1,327,255 3,544,366 2,217,111 Total Expenditures 14,526,598 16,891,850 2,365,252 CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (22,823) (2,388,075) (2,365,252) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,157,316 3,989,773 1,832,457 Fund Balances-ending working capital $2,134,493 $1,601,698 $(532,795) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for professional services associated with FCS Navy Rate Study (carryover)(42,141) Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (106,000) Expenditure - Increase transfers-out to WA Capital Fund due to excess fund balance (2,217,111) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (2,365,252) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 401 26 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 40,600 40,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 2,227,255 4,444,366 2,217,111 Total Revenues 2,267,855 4,484,966 2,217,111 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 4,288,582 4,526,279 237,697 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 4,288,582 4,526,279 237,697 CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (2,020,727) (41,313) 1,979,414 Fund Balances-beginning working capital 3,278,180 5,413,252 2,135,072 Fund Balances-ending working capital $1,257,453 $5,371,939 $4,114,486 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase capital for reservoir 4 site improvement project (carryover)(237,697) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from Water Operations Fund due to excess fund balance 2,217,111 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 1,979,414 Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 404 27 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 4,429,730 4,429,730 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 16,500 16,500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 4,446,230 4,446,230 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 4,010,443 4,012,267 1,824 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 436,230 436,230 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 4,446,673 4,448,497 1,824 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (443) (2,267) (1,824) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 257,114 285,095 27,981 Fund Balances-ending working capital $256,671 $282,828 $26,157 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for land lease payment higher than anticipated (1,824) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (1,824) Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 407 28 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales 90,000 90,000 - Other 12,000 12,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 15,915,450 15,915,450 - Fines and Forfeitures 18,000 18,000 - Miscellaneous 47,000 47,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 16,082,450 16,082,450 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 3,364,300 3,448,000 83,700 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 8,493,385 8,535,526 42,141 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 2,557,688 2,557,688 - Transfers Out 1,732,111 2,046,739 314,628 Total Expenditures 16,147,484 16,587,953 440,469 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (65,034) (505,503) (440,469) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,165,214 2,250,449 85,235 Fund Balances-ending working capital $2,100,180 $1,744,946 $(355,234) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies for professional services associated with FCS Navy Rate Study (carryover)(42,141) Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (83,700) Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Wastewater Capital Fund due to excess fund balance (314,628) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (440,469) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 451 29 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 120,600 120,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 2,482,111 2,796,739 314,628 Total Revenues 2,602,711 2,917,339 314,628 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 8,855,000 8,855,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 8,855,000 8,855,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (6,252,289) (5,937,661) 314,628 Fund Balances-beginning working capital 7,782,512 10,358,795 2,576,283 Fund Balances-ending working capital $1,530,223 $4,421,134 $2,890,911 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Increase transfer-in from Wastewater Operations Fund due to excess fund balance 314,628 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 314,628 Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 454 30 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STORMWATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 23,000 23,000 - Charges for Services 4,130,288 4,130,288 - Fines and Forfeitures 10,000 10,000 - Miscellaneous 10,500 10,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 4,173,788 4,173,788 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,432,376 1,467,776 35,400 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 2,282,954 2,282,954 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 154,575 154,575 - Transfers Out 350,093 434,649 84,556 Total Expenditures 4,219,998 4,339,954 119,956 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (46,210) (166,166) (119,956) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 560,391 634,803 74,412 Fund Balances-ending working capital $514,181 $468,637 $(45,544) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (35,400) Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Stormwater Capital Fund due to excess fund balance (84,556) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (119,956) New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 481 31 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STORMWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 101,000 101,000 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 30,000 30,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 1,748,653 2,071,209 322,556 Total Revenues 1,879,653 2,202,209 322,556 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 3,195,747 3,195,747 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 3,195,747 3,195,747 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (1,316,094) (993,538) 322,556 Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,447,793 3,942,176 1,494,383 Fund Balances-ending working capital $1,131,699 $2,948,638 $1,816,939 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Increase transfer-in from Lebo Blvd to close out fund 238,000 Revenue - Increase transfer-in from Stormwater Operations Fund due to excess fund balance 84,556 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 322,556 Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 484 32 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE UTILITY DEBT RESERVE For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 14,500 14,500 - Transfers in and other - - - Total Revenues 14,500 14,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures - - - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 14,500 14,500 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 1,637,490 1,649,795 12,305 Fund Balances-ending working capital $1,651,990 $1,664,295 $12,305 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 0 New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 499 33 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE RISK MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,847,336 1,847,336 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 1,847,336 1,847,336 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 290,000 340,000 50,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,548,491 1,548,491 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,838,491 1,888,491 50,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 8,845 (41,155) (50,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,330,053 2,731,265 401,212 Fund Balances-ending working capital $2,338,898 $2,690,110 $351,212 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to unanticipated medical claims (50,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (50,000) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 503 34 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 4,000 4,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 4,000 4,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 40,000 40,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 40,000 40,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (36,000) (36,000) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 356,135 317,510 (38,625) Fund Balances-ending working capital $320,135 $281,510 $(38,625) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 506 35 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ACCUMULATED LEAVE LIABILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 543,000 543,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 543,000 543,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 400,000 400,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 400,000 400,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 143,000 143,000 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 175,567 163,047 (12,520) Fund Balances-ending working capital $318,567 $306,047 $(12,520) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 507 36 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 1,868,227 1,868,227 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000 - Transfers in & Other Financing - - - Total Revenues 1,871,227 1,871,227 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 528,500 543,900 15,400 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,352,047 1,352,047 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,880,547 1,895,947 15,400 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (9,320) (24,720) (15,400) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 161,087 78,894 (82,193) Fund Balances-ending working capital $151,767 $54,174 $(97,593) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (15,400) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (15,400) New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 509 37 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE - RESERVES For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 50,000 50,000 - Transfers in & Other 1,414,550 1,414,550 - Total Revenues 1,464,550 1,464,550 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 2,761 2,761 - Capital Expenditures 1,249,216 1,910,708 661,492 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out & Other - - - Total Expenditures 1,251,977 1,913,469 661,492 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 212,573 (448,919) (661,492) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 3,568,985 4,423,572 854,587 Fund Balances-ending working capital $3,781,558 $3,974,653 193,095 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase capital for Parks water truck and 9 Police Interceptors (carryover)(661,492) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (661,492) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 510 38 CITY OF BREMERTON 2019 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE INFORMATION SERVICES For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Proposed Adj Required Adopted Amended From The Budget Budget Adopted Budget 2019 2019 2019 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 1,676,009 1,676,009 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000 - Transfers in - 250,000 250,000 Total Revenues 1,679,009 1,929,009 250,000 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 872,500 903,300 30,800 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 823,326 823,326 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,695,826 1,726,626 30,800 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (16,817) 202,383 219,200 Fund Balances-beginning working capital 291,211 406,306 115,095 Fund Balances-ending working capital $274,394 $608,689 $334,295 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel due to contract negotiations (30,800) Revenue - Increase transfer-in from General Fund for I-Leads software set-a-side 250,000 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ 219,200 Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 511 39 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Ordinance No. ___ adding new Chapter 6.20 to the Bremerton Municipal Code regulating the Distribution of Single-use Plastic and Biodegradable Carryout Bags COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: PW&U Presenter: M. Hawkins-Bates Phone: (360) 473-5333 SUMMARY: Using the input received from the public, Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), and city representatives, the attached draft ordinance was crafted and reviewed by city and county staff. With Council, public and SWAC input in-hand, the proposed draft ordinance was crafted to include the following:  For each recycled paper carryout bag provided by the retail establishments, it may collect a pass-through charge, and such shall be clearly indicated on the customers transaction receipt. Note that a plastic bag ban bill is making its way through the state legislative process. This bill would prohibit the use of single-use plastic carryout bags and require a charge of 8 cents ($.08) on all paper carryout bags statewide. Kitsap County will be performing outreach to all businesses and will embark on a n outreach campaign. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. ___ regulating the distribution of single-use plastic and biodegradable carryout bags, requiring retail establishments to collect a pass-through charge from customers requesting recyclable paper carryout bags. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A2 1 Chapter 6.20 BMC - Carryout Bags ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adding a new chapter to the Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20 BMC, regulating the distribution of single-use plastic and biodegradable carryout bags. WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in chapters 70.93 and 70.95 RCW has established that waste reduction as a priority in the collection, handling, and managing of solid waste for the benefit of public health and for a healthful, clean and beautiful environment; and WHEREAS, it is the City’s desire to conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, waste, litter, and marine pollution, and to protect the public health and welfare, including wildlife, all of which increase the quality of life for the residents of the City, and WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology’s litter survey states that plastic bags and film are one of the ten most littered items in Washington State, by weight, and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 380 billion plastic bags and wraps are consumed in the United States, annually, and WHEREAS, The City’s plastic bag consumption is estimated to be approximately 12 million, annually, and WHEREAS, only approximately 0.5% of plastic bags and wraps are recycled, and WHEREAS, decreased reliance on single-use carryout bags contributes toward the goals of conserving energy and natural resources while reducing greenhouse gases and litter ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. A new chapter, Chapter 6.20 entitled “Carryout Bags”, is hereby added to Title 6 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 6.20 CARRYOUT BAGS 6.20.010 DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance codified in this chapter: (a) "Compostable" means that the product will break down into, or otherwise become 2 Chapter 6.20 BMC - Carryout Bags part, of usable compost in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting facility, or in a home compost pile or device, and has been certified as compostable by the Biodegradable Products Institute or similar national or international certification authority. (b) “Carryout bag” means any bag that is provided by a retail establishment at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure to a customer for use to transport or carry away purchases such as merchandise, goods or food from the retail establishment. Carryout bags do not include: (1) Bags used by consumers inside stores to package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy, greeting cards or small hardware items such as nails, bolts or screws; to contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish regardless of whether they are prepackaged; to contain or wrap flowers, potted plants or other items where dampness may be a problem; to contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods; or to contain prescription drugs; or (2) A bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placed in a recyclable paper bag or reusable bag, such as prepared take-out foods or prepared liquids intended for consumption away from the retail establishment; or (3) Newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, tire bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags for uses such as food storage, garbage, pet waste or yard waste. (4) Paper bags with a capacity of eight pounds or less, that contain at least 20% postconsumer recycled material. (c) “Recycled paper carryout bag” means a paper carryout bag provided by a store to a customer at the point-of-sale that meets all of the following requirements: (1) Has a material weight of larger than eight-pounds and contains an average of 40% postconsumer recycled materials; (2) Is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in a majority of households that have access to curbside recycling programs in the County; (3) Is capable of composting in a commercial composting facility; and (4) Is clearly labeled with the minimum percentage of postconsumer content. (d) “Retail establishment” means any person, corporation, partnership, business, facility, vender, organization or individual that sells or provides merchandise, goods, or materials, including, without limitation, clothing, food, or personal items of any kind, directly to a customer. Examples include, but are not limited to, any grocery store, department store, hardware store, pharmacy, liquor store, restaurant, catering truck, convenience store, and any other retail store or vendor, including temporary ones at farmers markets, street fairs, and festivals. (e) “Reusable carryout bag” means a bag made of cloth or other material with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for long term multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: (1) Has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capacity of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet, (2) Is machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, and (3) If made of film plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick. (f) “Single-use plastic carryout bag” means any bag that is less than 2.25 mils thick and is made from plastic or any nonrenewable resource. 3 Chapter 6.20 BMC - Carryout Bags (g) “Pass-through charge” means a charge collected by retailers from their customers when providing plastic or recycled paper carryout bags, and retained by retailers to offset the cost of bags and other costs related to the pass-through charge. 6.20.020 REGULATIONS. Except as provided by Section 6.20.030 below, all retail establishments within the City must comply with the following regulations: (a) Plastic Carryout Bags. Retail establishments shall not provide a single-use plastic carryout bag to any customer. (b) Paper Carryout Bag. Retail establishments shall not provide to any customer at the point-of-sale a paper bag that is not a recycled paper carryout bag. For each recycled paper carryout bag provided by the retail establishment, it may collect a pass-through charge and such shall be clearly indicated on the customer transaction receipt. (c) Reusable Carryout Bags. Retail establishments may make reusable carryout bags available to customers through sale. (d) Non-Carryout Bags. a. Non-Compostable Plastic Bags. Retail establishments shall not use or provide to any customer a polyethylene or other non-compostable plastic film bags tinted green or brown for customers to bag products in stores. b. Compostable Plastic Bags. Any film bags meeting the definition of compostable that retail establishments provide to customers for food or other products, such as vegetables bagged in stores prior to checkout, must be tinted green or brown and shall be clearly labeled “COMPOSTABLE,” including language following the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides.” 6.20.030 EXEMPTIONS. (a) No retail establishment may collect a pass-through charge from anyone with a voucher or electronic benefits card issued under programs including, but not limited to, Women Infants and Children (WIC); Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as Basic Food; and the Washington State Food Assistance Program (FAP). (b) Food banks and other food assistance programs are exempt from the requirements for this chapter. 6.20.040 VIOLATIONS. In addition to any other violation set forth in this chapter, any violation of Section 6.20.020 above constitutes a civil violation under Chapter 1.04 BMC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and enforcement may be required as provided therein. 6.20.050 IMPLEMENTATION. All retail establishments shall comply with the requirements of this chapter by January 1, 2020. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 4 Chapter 6.20 BMC - Carryout Bags SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2019. _________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2019. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA WOODS, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2019. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2019. ORDINANCE NO. ________. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Legal\Carry out bags\BMC 6.20 carryout bag - County model updated - 12-20-18.docx From:Lori Wheat To:Lori Smith Cc:City Council; Milenka Hawkins-Bates Subject:Re: Proposed Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags Date:Friday, May 17, 2019 1:35:59 PM Great question! I have researched the single-use plastic bag issue, and I think the following article does a good job of explaining the difference between different types of bags (i.e., “traditional”, “degradable”, “biodegradable”, or “compostable”): https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/plastic-bags-whats-difference-between-degradable- compostable-and-biodegradable/ From what I have read, it sounds like “compostable” bags are more expensive than traditional bags. Accordingly, most stores are unlikely to spend more to provide compostable bags to customers, unless a law is in place to require or adequately incentivize it. I have also researched the issue of plastic bag bans with carryout bag fees versus plastic bag bans without carryout bag fees. Here are a couple of articles that address this issue well: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-carryout-bag-fees-are-better-than-plastic-bag- bans_us_588187ace4b08f5134b61f79 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/13/the-surprising-reason-why- those-5-cent-charges-for-plastic-bags-actually-work/?utm_term=.f207d4529c62 The data indicate that the carryout bag fee is the most important component of the law in terms of changing consumer behavior, so that the majority of consumers bring their own reusable bags rather than accepting carryout bags. Without the bag fee, most consumers will continue to accept whatever carryout bags are provided for free. Why should we discourage customers from taking free paper bags by imposing a bag fee after banning plastic bags? Paper bags have nonrenewable fossil fuel embedded costs (extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, and lots of transport to various facilities and ultimately to individual stores - note that paper bags are heavier than plastic bags, thus requiring more fuel to transport to the retailers). Hence, both plastic bags and paper bags have a high embedded cost of nonrenewable fossil fuels. Properly incentivizing people, with a bag fee, to bring their own reusable bags is the best alternative. Best, Lori Lori Wheat Bremerton Council Member, District 4 On May 17, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Lori Smith <Lori.Smith@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote: I’m sure the question has already been asked and answered, but what is the reason why single-use plastic bags used for groceries can’t be made out of 100% degradable material (that is made from recycled plastic), just like doggie waste bags? Or at least using the same idea? <IMG_3196.jpeg> Plastic Bags: What’s The Difference Between Degradable, Compostable and Biodegradable? Jul 11, 2016 The other weekend I asked my partner to run out and grab some groceries I needed for dinner. I noticed him leaving, sans re-usable bag so yelled, "don't forget this!" and chucked a cotton bag his way. He grabbed the bag and said "it's okay if I forget a bag anyway, they (our local grocery shop) use biodegradable bags!" as he headed out the door. It seems to be a common misconception that degradable o r biodegradable bags are a suitable alternative to plastic bags, but they're great in theory and environmentally destructive in reality. Recently, a senate enquiry into the threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia found that the degradable bag option is equally as bad for the environment as regular plastic bags. The report based on the senate findings stated that: "WHILE CONSUMERS MIGHT FEEL THEY ARE 'DOING THE RIGHT THING' BY CHOOSING BIODEGRADABLE OR DEGRADABLE PLASTIC, THESE PRODUCTS SIMPLY DISINTEGRATE INTO SMALLER AND SMALLER PIECES TO BECOME MICROPLASTIC." The inquiry also found that there is some serious confusion amongst the community surrounding the difference between bag types. It can be difficult to navigate the minefield of planet -friendly options, so here's our handy guide to help you separate what's truly eco from what to veto. Traditional plastic bags How are traditional plastic bags detrimental to our environment? Let me count the ways. Single- use plastic bags have an average life span of 12 minutes, and worldwide we are using 2 million of these every sixty seconds. Polyethene bags are made from a non-renewable resource, and are incredibly harmful to the marine environment as they never biodegrade. Instead, they will simply break into smaller and smaller pieces over hundreds of years, inflicting untold amounts of damage to natural ecosystems. Image: Troy Mayne Biodegradable plastic bags To put it simply, something is biodegradable when living things, like fungi or bacteria, can break it down. Biodegradable bags are made from plant-based materials like corn and wheat starch rather than petroleum. However when it comes to this kind of plastic, there are certain conditions required for the bag to begin to biodegrade. Firstly, temperatures need to reach 50 degrees Celsius. Secondly, the bag needs to be exposed to UV light. In an oceanic environment, you'd be hard pressed to meet either of these criteria. Plus, if biodegradable bags are sent to landfill, they break down without oxygen to produce methane, a greenhouse gas with a warming capacity 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Degradable or 'oxo-degradable' plastic bags Degradable items don't have living organisms as a crucial part of the breakdown process. Degradable bags cannot be classed as biodegradable or compostable. Instead, chemical additives used in the plastic allow the bag to break down quicker than a standard plastic bag usually would. Essentially bags touted as 'degradable' are definitely not beneficial, and can even be worse for the environment! Degradable bags that disintegrate just become tinier and tinier pieces of microplastic quicker, and still pose serious threats to marine life. Microplastics enter the food chain lower down, getting eaten by smaller species and then continuing to make their way up the food chain as these smaller species are consumed. Professor Tony Underwood from the University of Sydney described degradable plastic bags as "not a solution to anything much, unless we are quite happy to shift it all into particle -sized plastics rather than plastic bag-sized plastic." "NOT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING MUCH, UNLESS WE ARE QUITE HAPPY TO SHIFT IT ALL INTO PARTICLE-SIZED PLASTICS RATHER THAN PLASTIC BAG-SIZED PLASTIC." - PROFESSOR TONY UNDERWOOD ON DEGRADABLE BAGS Compostable plastic bags The word 'compostable' is incredibly misleading for the average consumer. You'd think a bag labeled 'compostable' would mean you could throw it in your backyard compost alongside your fruit and vegie scraps, right? Wrong. Compostable bags biodegrade, but only under certain conditions. Compostable bags need to be composted in a specific composting facility, of which there are very few of in Australia. Compostable bags are generally made from plant material that return to base organic components when processed by these facilities, but the problem lies in the fact there are thus far only 150 of these facilities Australia wide. Can I recycle plastic bags? Plastic bags, biodegradable, degradable and compostable bags cannot be placed in your standard recycling bin at home. They can severely interfere with the recycling process if they are. However, your local supermarket may offer plastic bag recycling. Some supermarkets can also recycle 'green bags' that are torn or no longer used. Which is the best bag to use? BYO bag is the best option. The labeling on plastic bags can be confusing and misleading, so bringing your own bag along will avoid disposing of a plastic bag incorrectly. Invest in a sturdy canvas bag, or a small cotton bag that you can throw in your handbag and use when you get some last minute groceries. We need to transition from relying on items of convenience, and instead focus on small actions that show care for the world we live in. Ditching single-use plastic bags of all kinds is the first step. Jennie Romer, Contributor Attorney and Sustainability Consultant Why Carryout Bag Fees Are More Effective Than Plastic Bag Bans “Would you like to purchase a bag for that?” 01/20/2017 12:13 am ET Updated Feb 15, 2017 As New York City moves forward with implementation of its carryout bag fee law, many people are asking why a fee is being pursued instead of a ban. Plastic bag “bans” sound like an ultimate sweeping policy choice, in part because “bag ban” is a term that has entered the American lexicon as shorthand for bag laws generally. However, the fee component is the policy element that’s by far the most effective way to change consumer behavior and reduce carryout bag consumption. A “straight” plastic bag ban in the U.S. generally means that thin plastic bags are banned and paper and reusable bags are still available for free; this style of ordinance is sometimes called a “first generation” plastic bag ban. Straight bans often result in consumers taking whichever alternatives are still available for free, meaning that consumption of free paper and thicker plastic bags that qualify as a “reusable bag” (2.25 mils thick under most laws) often increases to some extent as consumption of thin single-use plastic bag use decreases. Straight plastic bag bans implemented in Chicago and Hawaii in recent years resulted in many stores, including Walmart, simply upping the thickness of their plastic bags to 2.25 mils to cross the threshold that separates “single-use” plastic from “reusable” plastic bags under many bag laws. In response to seeing that a straight plastic bag ban did not work as intended, Chicago recently scrapped its plastic ban in favor of a 7-cent fee on all carryout bags. Underlying all of this is that the plastics industry, and to a lesser extent the grocers’ industry, have a history of threatening to sue any jurisdiction that moves forward with straight plastic bag bans. Plastic bag manufacturers have an obvious interest in protecting an unregulated marketplace for their product and plastics industry trade groups have been lobbying against bag bans and fees practically since the idea was first articulated. Plastic bag manufacturers have also found that litigation - suing cities to stop adoption or implementation of bans and fees - to be incredibly effective in slowing down the speed at which bag laws are adopted. The plastics industry’s best argument against bans has been an environmental one, that if plastic bags are banned then people will just use paper (or whatever is free) and therefore the outcome of bans could be worse for the environment. Grocers’ industry groups have a different motivation for not wanting straight bans, the main reason being that paper bags cost significantly more than plastic: thin plastic bags cost 1-3 cents and paper bags with handles and recycled content cost around 8-10 cents. In practice, laws that ban plastic and don’t mandate a charge on paper bags often result in stores providing paper for free, since stores want to make sure consumers purchase as much as possible and most grocery stores don’t want to run the risk of offending customers by charging for paper bags when a charge is not mandated. The cost of supplying for free the more expensive paper bags cuts into the grocers’ profit. As a result, grocery store associations often oppose straight plastic bag bans and sometimes file lawsuits (including one in New York state) using many of the same arguments that plastics industry groups do. These plastics industry and grocer lawsuits concentrate on weighting the merits of plastic versus paper and various types of reusable bags in exhausting detail, down to things like comparing the greenhouse gas emissions for paper bags versus plastic because paper takes up more space in trucks and additional trucks idling in front of stores due to increased paper bag consumption could possibly contribute more overall diesel emissions. Many cities have spent years in court battling these lawsuits regarding straight bans, with mixed results. In response to the lack of real change in consumer behavior resulting from straight bans as well as threatened lawsuits from industry groups with innocuous-sounding names like Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling and Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, cities that had pioneered straight plastic bag ban - namely San Francisco - began to add a minimum charge for paper bags and reusable bags. These new ordinances kept the ban on thin plastic in place and added a 10-cent charge to all other carryout bags including paper and reusable bags of any kind. These new ban/fee hybrids were deemed “second generation bans” and they were much more effective: overall single-use bag consumption decreased. When customers are suddenly presented with the question “Would you like to purchase a bag for that?” bag consumption drops dramatically. For example, in San Jose, California reusable bag use increased greatly following the implementation of the ordinance, from almost 4 percent of bags observed to approximately 62 percent of bags observed. Washington DC’s 5-cent charge on paper and plastic carryout bags that went into effect in 2010, and has led to a 60% drop in overall single-use bags and a corresponding drop in bag litter in the river there. Eighty percent of Washington DC residents surveyed were positive or neutral about the bag fee there. One benefit to the fee on all bags versus a ban/fee hybrid is that many people use thin plastic bags as liners for small trash cans and to pick up after dogs and with a fee those bags are still available for a small fee so that people don’t feel the need to spend more money on specialized alternatives, but the fee makes consumers more mindful about whether they need a bag for each purchase. Where the money from bag fees goes presents its own set of challenges. When cities started mandating fees on bags outside of Washington DC, plastics industry groups found another reason to sue. Cities and towns generally don’t have the power to levy taxes unless specifically granted permission to do so by the state. Washington DC isn’t part of a state so was able to levy a 5-cent tax on bags and have a portion of the money generated go to a bag education and river clean-up fund. However, when other cities started discussing imposing paper bag fees and sending that money back to local governments for a similar clean-up or education purpose, they were threatened with lawsuits again, this time for unconstitutional taxation. To avoid this claim of unconstitutionality, municipalities — including the County of Los Angeles — mandated that retailers must charge 10 cents for paper bags and that the entire amount must stay with the retailer. Los Angeles County was sued and the California Court of Appeal found that, because no money went to the government, the mandatory charge could not be considered a tax. LA County’s bag law (a ban on thin plastic and 10 cent charge for paper) was upheld. Many other cities across the U.S. then followed LA County’s model and required that the entire amount of the charge stay with stores. Plastics industry groups often use the fact that bag ban money must legally remain with the retailer to malign the laws as “grocers-getting-rich” but the truth is that there isn’t much of a choice for local lawmakers as far as where the bag fee money can go and, perhaps more importantly, a bag fee of 5-10 cents is roughly equal to the cost of providing a carryout bag. The take-home lesson here is that either a bag fee on all bags or a ban/fee hybrid that covers all types of bags are the most effective methods to reduce overall bag consumption as well as avoid getting sued in the process. Also, many NYC residents expressed concerns that they re-use plastic bags as garbage liners or for picking up after their dogs, so a fee on all bags was determined to be the best policy option for NYC. The City Council passed NYC’s #BYOBag law, a minimum 5-cent fee on all carryout bags, in May 2016. NYC’s law is scheduled to be implemented on February 15, 2017 unless the NY state legislature blocks the fee with a preemption bill. To learn more about the preemption bill visit NYC Council Member Brad Lander’s website, for grassroots activism updates visit the BagItNYC Facebook page, and if you’d like to show your support for NYC’s law, sign this petition against preemption. Economic Policy The surprising reason why those 5 cent charges for plastic bags actually work By Chris Mooney November 13, 2014 If you live in Washington, you know the drill: After bagging your groceries, the checkout machine asks you how many bags you used. And if you used plastic or disposable bags (rather than bags you brought on your own), you have to pay 5 cents per bag. The District passed a law requiring as much in 2009 -- a policy that states like New Jersey and New York are also considering, and that has been adopted around the world from Ireland and Scotland to South Africa. Some localities have gone farther still -- California and Hawaii have effectively banned plastic bags outright -- but recent research suggests that charges or fees can also be effective (and have the added benefit of being less coercive). Moreover, it suggests that they work, at least in part, through a surprising mechanism. It's not just the relatively minor added cost, on its own, that impels people to stop using plastic bags and to instead bring their own bags with them to the store. Rather, it's the way this small change disrupts habitual behaviors and helps people draw a tighter linkage between the environmental awareness that they already possess, and actions in the world that actually advance that consciousness and their values. Such is the upshot of a new study on plastic bag charges published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology by a team of Argentinian researchers, led by psychologist Adriana Jakovcevic of Buenos Aires University. Charging a relatively small amount for bags "produces changes in behavior," says Jakovcevic, "and these changes are not only because of the economic value of the incentive -- there are also some other processes at play that involve environmental concerns." As the researchers note, Buenos Aires provides a perfect opportunity to study the effects of plastic bag charges because in 2012, the vast city's Environmental Protection Agency put in place bag restrictions that in turn led the leading supermarket chain association to institute a bag charge (the equivalent of 2.5 U.S. cents for bags of medium size and 4 cents for large bags) Oct. 9, 2012. For smaller supermarket associations, meanwhile, the same charge went into effect roughly two months later on Dec. 10, 2012. But for Gran Buenos Aires, the larger area that surrounds the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA), there was no change instituted at all. This is, the researchers note, a "natural experiment": You have three groups of supermarket shoppers, two of which experienced new bag charges at different times, and one of which did not experience plastic bag charges at all. So the researchers conducted several field studies, observing shoppers leaving supermarkets in low-to-middle income areas in the three different regions at different times -- before any policies went into place, after the first change, and after the second change. The result was that sure enough, the policies greatly increased the percentage of shoppers who were observed to be carrying their own bag. Here's a figure from their study, showing the effects for the first set of supermarkets to institute the charge (CABA1), the second set (CABA2), and for supermarkets in Gran Buenos Aires that never saw a bag charge instituted (GBA). Consumers were observed at four times: before any policies took place (Time 1), just after the first policy affected CABA1 (Time 2), four weeks after the policy change (Time 3), and then shortly after the second policy affected CABA2 (Time 4): Clearly, the bag fees worked to dramatically increase the habit of people carrying their own bags. But importantly, in a second study that involved directly interviewing consumers who were observed to leave supermarkets carrying either plastic bags or their own bags, the researchers tried to get at why they had begun to adopt this new behavior, rather than paying the relatively small bag charges that had been instituted. First, it turned out that a surprising number of people didn't like the bag charge policy, but started carrying their own bags anyway. According to Jakovcevic, it is likely that the small economic cost is the best way of explaining the behavior of these individuals. Past research, however, has called into question whether a purely economic effect like this is a lasting one, with sustained influence on behavior. But there was another group of Argentinian shoppers -- those who supported the charge and carried their own bags for reasons of environmental concern. They cared much less about economics and much more about green motives. "The people who supported the policy most, they also say they do it for environmental reasons," says Jakovcevic, "and this is a stronger finding because it was an open question, the people could say anything that comes into their mind, and most of them say it was to protect the environment." For these shoppers, says Jakovcevic, the policy provided an opportunity to "rethink why they are using plastic bags or their own bags, and if they care about the environment, this will push them to change their behavior and change it longer over time." Thus, the paper concludes that the bag charge might have worked "both by the activation of pre-existent pro-environmental attitudes and by a direct effect of the charge on behavior." In addition, it suggests that the new policy worked in another way as well -- by being disruptive of the status quo and changing people's default options and choices. "After the introduction of the plastic bag charge, customers had to explicitly approve or request to obtain a bag and pay for it," notes the study. They couldn't just get one without thinking about it. So just maybe, a little 5 cent charge can indeed help the environment. You don't have to confiscate all the plastic bags in the world to save the environment (enraging anyone from industry to the Tea Party in the process). You can just give people the slightest push, and let them fix the problem themselves. RE: Comments on Plastic Bag Ban (WA Food Industry Association) Good afternoon, My name is Catherine Holm and I am the legislative manager/legal counsel for the Washington Food Industry Association. The Washington Food Industry Association represents independently owned grocery stores and convenience stores, and others in the food industry such as distributors, breweries and coffee suppliers. I am reaching out to you today because you have decided to potentially implement a plastic bag ban ordinance. We stand with Zero Waste Washington and NW Grocery Association, two organizations you are currently working with. The first document is our policy paper which addresses two important points for our members: 1) there is a need for the pass-through charge (10 cents); and 2) the need for an alternative to paper bags. The second documents shows the difference in pricing between paper and plastic bags, given to WFIA by one of our members, Bunzl Distribution – a major distributor of paper and plastic bags throughout Washington State. We encourage you to pass the plastic bag ban as long as there is a 10 cent pass-through charge and an alternative to paper bags such as the 2.25 mil reusable plastic bag. Please let me know if you have any questions. I plan on coming to your study session on Wednesday, and I look forward to meeting all of you there. Thank you. Catherine Holm Legal Counsel & Legislative Manager Washington Food Industry Association 360-753-5177 Ext 104 (o) 360-970-9481 (c) The Washington Food Industry Association promotes, supports, and protects businesses in the food, beverage, and convenience industry. www.wa-food-ind.org ● 1415 Harrison Ave NW, Suite 101 ● Olympia, WA 98502; PO Box 706 ● Olympia, WA 98507-0706 ● (360) 753-5177 PLASTIC BAG BAN WFIA POSITION: WFIA supports a statewide plastic bag ban as long as there is a pass- through charge of $0.10 per paper bag and an option for a 2.25 mil bag. Additionally, the technical specifications of the bags must be industry standards. BACKGROUND: Single-use plastic bags emerged as a popular bag choice in the 1970s. The popularity of single-use bags can be traced to their convenience, lightweight construction, affordability, and opportunity for reuse, among other reasons. However, concerns have been raised about the environmental consequences they pose. In response, many local city or county governments throughout Washington State have chosen to ban single-use plastic bags, which includes pass-through charges on single-use paper bags to encourage the use of reusable bags. The grocery and convenience store industry has worked with these governments and proponents of the bag bans to ensure these methods, and requirements to accommodate the bag bans, are consistent. A pass-through charge of $0.10 is needed to help supplement the cost difference between plastic film bags and paper or 2.25 mil plastic reusable bags. Currently, paper bags cost around $0.10 to $0.12 to buy from manufacturers, while plastic film bags cost $0.02 to buy from manufacturers. Businesses need to be able to recuperate associated costs. Although it is hopeful that consumers will transition to reusable bags, it is not guaranteed. The pass- through charge will offset the cost increase to retailers. Otherwise, this is an additional cost to the retailers, making it harder for your local grocery and convenience store to stay in business. At this point, the paper bag supply cannot meet paper bag demand. The demand for paper bags is so high that many of our stores run out of paper bags. With more bans being implemented throughout the country, it is important that there is an alternative to paper bags for customers to use. The 2.25 mil plastic reusable bag is an acceptable alternative as it is reusable and it can be recycled unlike the plastic film bags. For more information contact: Jan Gee President & CEO 253-209-5079 Catherine Holm Legal Counsel/Legislative Manager 360-970-9481 The Washington Food Industry Association promotes, supports, and protects businesses in the food, beverage, and convenience industry. www.wa-food-ind.org ● 1415 Harrison Ave NW ● Olympia, WA 98502; PO Box 706 ● Olympia, WA 98507-0706 ● (360) 753-5177 PLASTIC BAG BAN – BAG COSTS WFIA grocery and convenience store members pay more than 10 cents for carry out paper bags. The following are the prices provided by Bunzl Inc., an international distribution and service group. They are a primary distributor of bags for our stores throughout Washington State. Large Customers – paper bags 1/7th Handle Carryout Bag 900 Bales Per Month Cost per Bag: 11.62 Cents per Bag Medium Customers – paper bags 1/6th Handle Carryout Bag 50 Bales per Month Cost per Bag: 12.5 Cents per Bag 1/6th No Handle Carryout Bag 30 Bales Per Month Cost per Bag: 10.6 Cents per Bag Small Customers – paper bags Small Customer: 1/7th Handle Carryout Bag 236 Bales Per Month Cost per Bag: 11.9 Cents per Bag Average Customer – non-paper bags Average Plastic Film T-Sack 400 Bales per Month Cost per Bag: 2.2 Cents per Bag Compostable T-Sack Cost per Bag: 11-12 Cents per Bag Reusable Plastic T-Sack 2.25 mil 70 Cases per Month Cost per Bag: 8.6 Cents per Bag Without the fee, converting plastic bags to paper bags is a huge cost. For example, Rosauers Supermarkets has 14 stores in Washington State. They would pay an additional $840,625 by switching to paper bags only. As such, we ask you to support the 10-cent fee, as independent grocery and convenience stores need the fee as a way to recuperate the cost difference between paper and plastic bags. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Interlocal Agreement with Mason County for Road and Street Chip Seal Maintenance Services COUNCIL MEETING Date: N/A Department: PW &U Presenter: M. Hawkins-Bates Phone: (360) 473-5333 SUMMARY: The City’s current Interlocal Agreement provides for Mason County to provide chip seal services. Mason County has given the City 4 days to do as much of this work as possible, with the 2019 street segments shown on the attached location maps. The 2019 estimate is for $205,000, and the work is tentatively planned for the week of June 17. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Exhibit “A” (Work Request) – 2019 Chip Seal Estimate by Mason County PW 2) Interlocal Agreement; 3) Location Maps FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This item is included in the 2019 Residential Street Fund. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Action Requested RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the 2019 Work Request/Exhibit with Mason County for Chip Seal services; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A3 Action anticipated… Updated Estimated Cost based on County Wage and FEMA Equipment Rates 5/8/2019 Item Description Cost 1 Mobilization 17,405.13$ 2 CRS2-P Costs 74,581.63$ 3 Chip Seal Roadway 67,970.50$ 4 Fog Seal Application 25,911.44$ 5 Miscellaneous 18,586.87$ Total Project Cost:204,455.57$ 1 Mobilization # of units Hours $ / Hr Cost Labor 17 x 10 @ 42.50$ =7,225.00$ 8.5% Tax 614.13$ Labor Cost 7,839.13$ Equipment ~Chip Spreader 1 x 10 @ 116.60$ =1,166.00$ ~Oil Distributor 2 x 10 @ 41.60$ =832.00$ ~Truck - 12 Yd Dump 6 x 10 @ 67.70$ =4,062.00$ ~Tilt Trailer 4 x 10 @ 11.25$ =450.00$ ~Pneumatic Roller 3 x 10 @ 33.75$ =1,012.50$ ~Steel Roller 1 x 10 @ 28.75$ =287.50$ ~Crew Truck 4 x 10 @ 26.00$ =1,040.00$ ~Tractor / Lowboy 1 x 10 @ 71.60$ =716.00$ Equipment Cost 9,566.00$ City of Bremerton 2019 Chip Seal Estimate by Mason County PW EXHIBIT 'A' 2 CRS2-P Delivery and Storage # of units Hours $ / Hr Cost Equipment ~County Tractor / Tanker 1 x 40 @ 100.00$ =4,000.00$ Equipment Cost 4,000.00$ Materials ~Contracted Emulsion Delivery Cost 116.66 x @ 65.00$ =7,582.90$ ~CRS2-P 116.66 x @ 435.00$ =50,747.10$ 9.2% Tax =12,251.63$ Material Cost 70,581.63$ 3 Chipseal Roadway # of units Hours $ / Hr Cost ~Chip Seal Application Labor 17 x 40 @ 42.50$ =28,900.00$ OT 17 8 63.75$ 8,670.00$ 8.5% Tax =2,456.50$ Labor Cost 40,026.50$ Equipment ~Chip Spreader 1 x 40 @ 116.60$ =4,664.00$ ~Oil Distributor 2 x 40 @ 41.60$ =3,328.00$ ~Truck - 12 Yd Dump 4 x 40 @ 67.70$ =10,832.00$ ~Tilt Trailer 4 x 40 @ 10.25$ =1,640.00$ ~Pneumatic Roller 2 x 40 @ 29.00$ =2,320.00$ ~Steel Roller 1 x 40 @ 25.00$ =1,000.00$ ~Crew Truck 4 x 40 @ 26.00$ =4,160.00$ Equipment Cost 27,944.00$ 4 Fog Seal # of units Hours $ / Hr Cost Fog Seal Application ~Labor 1 x 80 @ 42.50$ =3,400.00$ 8.5% Tax =289.00$ Labor Cost 3,689.00$ Equipment ~Oil Distributor 1 x 80 @ 59.50$ =4,760.00$ ~Tractor / Tanker 1 x 80 @ 100.00$ =8,000.00$ Equipment Cost 12,760.00$ Materials ~CSS1-H 31 x @ 220.00$ =6,820.00$ ~Contracted Emulsion Delivery Cost 31 x @ 65.00$ =2,015.00$ 9.2% Tax =627.44$ Material Cost 9,462.44$ 5 Miscellaneous ~10% Contingency Totals 185,868.70$ Misc. Cost 18,586.87$ Total 204,455.57$ Please remember, this is only an estimate, actual costs will be invoiced.* Estimate does not include chip rock Estimate Approved by: City of Bremerton - Authorized Sign.Date INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MASON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON FOR ROAD AND STREET CHIP SEAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into pursuant to the Tnterlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, on the2A -A day of 2017, by and between the City of Bremerton (herein -after referred to as CITY) and Mason County (hereinafter COUNTY) collectively referred to as PARTIES. WHEREAS, Revised Code of Washington Section 39.34.030 authorizes cooperative efforts between public agencies, and VVHEREAS, the City has expressed interest in an interlocal agreement with the County whereby the County's Public Works Department will provide road and street maintenance services (chip seal); and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and covenants herein the PARTIES agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT: The purpose of this agreement is for Mason County to provide chip seal services for various roads and streets throughout the City of Bremerton, on a reimbursable basis. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT: Each PARTY to this agreement shall have an agreement representative. Each PARTY may change its, representative upon providing written notice to the other PARTIES, The PARTIES" representatives are as follows: To Mason County: Dept. of Public Works 100 W Public Works Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Attn: Melissa McFadden Phone: (360) 427-9670, Ext. Fax: (360) 427-7783 Email: MelissaM@co.mason.wa.us To Customer: Dept. of Public Works and Utilities 100 Oyster Bay Avenue N Bremerton WA 98312 Attn: Milenka Hawkins -Bates Phone: (360) 473-5333 Fax: Email: Milenka.Hawkins- Bates&i.brernerton.wa.us 3. DURATION OF AGREEMENT: This agreement shall take: effect upon execution of the agreement by both County and City and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2022, unless either PARTY terminates by giving ten days written notice to the other PARTY. Either PARTY may terminate, this agreement for convenience or any other reason. Page 1 4. WORK REQUESTS: The City will normally request chip seal maintenance on a given street or road at least eight months in advance of the work being performed, by submitting to COUNTY the form attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Work Request"), or by other written means, that include the information indicated by the form at Exhibit A. The request should be submitted by an authorized representative of the City by e-mail. Phone or verbal requests must be followed up with a written request. The COUNTY will only do work as authorized by the City. S. SCHEDULING: The COUNTY representative will determine whether the: COUNTY will perform the work requested on a particular Work Request, and will normally schedule the work in discussion with the City's representative, giving due consideration to the immediacy of the City's need and workload of the COUNTY. 6. COUNTY ENTLOYEES; COUNTY employees assigned to projects pursuant to this agreement remain employees of the COUNTY at all times, and shall perform the, work requested under the sole supervision of the COUNTY. 7. COMPENSATION: (A) The City shall pay the County its actual cost for requested services; an estimate will be provided by the County to the City if requested, (B) The COUNTY shall invoice the City detailing time and materials used by the COUNTY. (C) Payment is due upon receipt of invoice and payment shall be expected in thirty (30) days from date of invoice. Invoices and payments are to be sent to the address and representative referred to in Section 2. 8. NO SEPARATE ENTITY OR JOINT PROPERTY: No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this agreement, and no joint personal or real property will be acquired, held, or disposed of pursuant to this agreement, A) The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the COUNTY, its officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages, and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including costs and attorney's fees in defense thereof, for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the City's acts, errors or omissions in the performance of this agreement. PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the City's obligation there under shall not extend to injury, sickness, death or damage caused by or arising out of the sole negligence of the COUNTY, its officers, officials, employees or agents. PROVIDED FURTHER, that in the event of the concurrent negligence of the PARTIES, the City's obligations hereunder shall apply only to the percentage of fault attributable to theCity, its employees or agents. Page 2 B) With respect to the City's obligations to hold harmless, indemnify and defend provided for herein, but only as such obligations relate to claims, actions or suits filed against the COUNTY, the City further agrees to waive its immunity under the State Industrial Insurance Law, Title 51, RCW, for any injury or death suffered by the City's employees caused by or arising out of the City's acts, errors or omissions in the performance of this agreement. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the PARTIES, C) The City's obligations hereunder shall include, but are not limited to, investigating, adjusting and defending all claims alleging loss from action, error or omission or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the City, the City's employees, 'agents or subcontractors. 10. ASSIGNMENT, DELEGATION, AND SUBCONTRACTING. The PARTIES shall perform the terms of the agreement using only their bona fide employees or agents. 11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: The PARTIES shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations in performing this agreement. 12. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. 13. NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY: The COUNTY and the City agree not to discriminate in the performance of this agreement because of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, creed, marital status, disabled Or Vietnam era veteran status, or the presence of any physical, mental sensory handicap, or other status protected by law. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the PARTIES, and the PARTIES acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this agreement. 15. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this agreement shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this agreement, and to this end the provisions of this agreement are declared to be severable. 16. FILING: This document shall be filed with the County Auditor pursuant to RCW 39.34 or, alternatively, listed by subject on the COUNTY'S website., Page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. DATED this day of 1 017. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kevin Shulr, Chair 2 "'-2- TirfiVhitehej-Ch:DTiA low A&,EEST Shannon Corin, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger Lubovich(C y Attornej Page 4 EXHIBIT"A" REQUE4 ST AND AGREEMENT MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The undersigned hereby requests that the following described work and/or service be performed by the Mason County Department of Public Works. It is understood that this work will be done at the convenience of the County and that the undersigned agency will reimburse all costs, unless otherwise indicated. I 1 11 111 1117 11, 101 WaVA"i ilillii) 11111i! ; II I III ;I;Il Estimate Attached: Yes No Projected Completion Date: Total Cost Not to Exceed $ The undersigned certifies that sufficient budgeted funds are available to cover the cost of the requested work and/or services, and that payment to the Mason County Department of Public Works will be made promptly unless otherwise indicated in this agreement. REQUESTING AGENCY: City of Bremerton, Department of Public Works and Utilities Address: Phone: FAX: Requested by: Name (Please Print) Title (Please Print) Signature: — Date: M, AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Amendment No. 1 to Goods and Services Agreement with S. Varick Maintenance for Landscaping Maintenance and Services COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: PW&U Presenter: Wayne Hamilton Phone: (360) 473-5758 SUMMARY: The City is seeking approval to amend the current Goods and Services Agreement with S. Varick Maintenance to include additional Landscape Maintenance and Services at three (3) existing locations and add three (3) new City Properties to the service Contract for Landscape Maintenance and Services. These amendments are proposed to add landscape services to the Oyster Bay Public Works Center, Manette Bridge East Side/Lower Park boundary and at the Farragut Avenue intersection landscape areas. The new city property landscape locations are the Downtown parking facility, new landscape at Lebo Blvd. and the Olympus Drive Utilities Building. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Amendment No.1 for additional locations that require the Vendor’s services; and additional landscape services at existing contracted locations. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Total annual cost of contract is $102,236.55 per year. Not to exceed $9,000.00 per month in monthly costs. This amount is included in the 2019 budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Amendment No. 1 of the Good and Services Agreement with S. Varick Maintenance for additional City locations and additional landscape maintenance and services; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A4 S. Varick Maintenance GSA Amendment AMENDMENT 1 TO GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND S. VARICK MAINTENANCE This is the first amendment to the contract for Landscape Maintenance and Services entered into on the twelfth day of June, 2017 (“the Contract”), between the City of Bremerton (“City”) and S. Varick Maintenance, (“Vendor”). Whereas, the City and Vendor entered into the Contract wherein the Vendor provides landscape maintenance and services to various City facilities; and Whereas, the City has identified three (3) additional locations that require the Vendor’s services; and Whereas, the City has identified the need for additional landscape services at three (3) existing contracted locations; and Whereas, 3. Compensation not to exceed $7,000.00 per month shall be increased to not to exceed $9,000.00; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the City and Vendor mutually agree that the Contract is amended as follows: EXHIBIT “B” BID PROPOSAL: The following items are amended to add work area, and prices are amended accordingly: E. PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY OPERATIONS $ 149.00 Per Visit I. MANETTE BRIDGE $ 150.00 Per Visit L. NAVAL STATION ENTRANCE $ 127.00 Per Visit The following locations are added to the Contract: O. DOWN TOWN PARKING FACILITY $50.00 Per Visit P. LEBO BOULEVARD $182.00 Per Visit Q. OLYMPUS UTILITY BUILDING $135.00 Per Visit 11. Prevailing Wages, Is added to the contract: Contractor shall file a “Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages” with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to commencing the contract work. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter 39.12 of the Revised Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate provisions. S. Varick Maintenance GSA Amendment This document will become a supplement to the contract and all provisions will apply here to. All other terms of the Contract not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the date and year indicated. S. VARICK MAINTENANCE _________________________________ DATE:___________________________ Print Name:_______________________ Its:______________________________ CITY OF BREMERTON _________________________________ DATE:___________________________ Mayor Greg Wheeler APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ___________________________________ ________________________________ City Attorney, Roger Lubovich City Clerk, Angela Woods AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Equipment Services Building Addition Project Agreement with DP Wain Construction, Inc. COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: PW&U Presenter: Hamilton/Knuckey Phone: (360) 473-5207 SUMMARY: Requests for proposals were advertised to construct improvements to the east end of the Equipment Services Building to enclose an existing bay to allow work to be completed on vehicles and equipment during inclement weather. One bid was received from DP Wain Construction, Inc., of Silverdale, WA. The bid was less than the Engineer’s estimate of $250,000. The Department requests approval of the Bid Award to DP Wain Construction, Inc. in the bid amount of $176,580.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Bid Proposal from DP Wain Construction, Inc., 2) Public Works Agreement, 3) Bid Tabulation Form FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Bid Amount is $176,580.00 including WA State Sales Tax. This amount is included in the 2019 budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract with DP Wain Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Equipment Services Building Addition Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A5 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Acceptance of US Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grant; and Approval of the Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Washington Avenue and 11th Street Roundabout Project Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: Engineering Presenter: Shane Weber Phone: (360) 473-2354 SUMMARY: The City has been offered a United States Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grant through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to design and construct a roundabout at the west end of the Manette Bridge, along with full street reconstruction from the roundabout north and west to Pacific Avenue. The grant funds total $4,152,000 and require a City match of $648,000. The offered grant will be in WSDOT Standard Forms, with their standard terms and conditions. Additional project work that is not grant funded includes securing right of way. This work is currently estimated at $200,000. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Award letter from PSRC identifying the grant award, 2) Site Plan, 3) Local Agency Agreement (blank) 4) Fiscal Summary Added FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Total project cost is estimated at $5,000,000; City cost is estimated at $848,000, and will be funded by REET (Real Estate Excise Tax). For additional detail, see attached Fiscal Summary. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept U.S. Surface Transportation Program Grant; approve the Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Washington Avenue and 11th Street Roundabout Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A6 Updated 11th and Washington Roundabout Improvements Fiscal Summary Date: 5/14/2019 2019 2020 2021 2022* REET/Design 13,500$ 32,063$ 32,063$ -$ 77,625$ REET/Right of Way**100,000$ 100,000$ -$ 200,000$ Grant 86,500$ 205,438$ 205,438$ -$ 497,375$ Subtotal 100,000$ 337,500$ 337,500$ -$ 775,000$ REET 570,375$ 570,375$ Grant 3,654,625$ 3,654,625$ Subtotal -$ -$ -$ 4,225,000$ 4,225,000$ Total 100,000$ 337,500$ 337,500$ 4,225,000$ 5,000,000$ Total City (REET)13,500$ 132,063$ 132,063$ 570,375$ 848,000$ Total Grant 86,500$ 205,438$ 205,438$ 3,654,625$ 4,152,000$ * Advertisement date is scheduled for Fall 2021 for 2022 Construction ** Funding will cover $100K consultant cost and $100K acquisition cost Preliminary Engineering / Right of Way Construction Year of Implementation Phase/Funding Totals AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Agreement with Pape & Sons, Construction, Inc. for the 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW-4 Replacement COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: PW&U Presenter: Tom Knuckey, P.E. Phone: (360) 473-2376 SUMMARY: Sewer Pump Station CW -4, located at the end of Ohio Avenue, sits on the edge of a bluff. The pump station and the contributing sewer and laterals are difficult to access and maintain. The pump station will be relocated upland to the street and the gravity sewer infrastructure on the beach will be decommissioned. The pump station will be connected to an 8-inch force main on Ohio Avenue and pump to the Crosstown Pipeline at 13th Street and Navel Avenue, allowing the City to abandon the sewer beach force main. Additional work includes installation of 6 individual grinder pumps at residences, an 800-foot 6-inch force main along 17th Street, and a triplex pump station at 18th Street and Chester Avenue. There was one (1) bid submitted from Pape & Sons, Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,016,500 (which includes sales tax). ATTACHMENTS: 1) Agreement; 2) Bid Tabulation; 3) Vicinity Map FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project was included in the 2019 CIP at $1,800,000. The construction bid received was approximately $400,000 higher than the engineer’s estimate; total project costs are currently estimated at $2,385,000. No budget adjustment is required since total expenditures under the Wastewater Capital budget will not be exceeded. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Award the contract for 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW-4 Replacement to Pape & Sons, Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,016,500 (which includes sales tax); and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A7 Section 00521 AGREEMENT City of Bremerton 00521-2 April 2019 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW-4 Replacement Issued for Bid ARTICLE 6. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR concerning the WORK consist of this Agreement (Section 00521) and the following attachments to this Agreement:  Notice Inviting Bids (Section 00116).  Bidder’s Checklist (Section 00211).  Instructions to Bidders (Section 00213).  Bid Forms including the Bid, Bid Schedule(s), Information Required of Bidder, Bid Bond, and all required certificates and affidavits (Section 00410).  Performance Bond (Section 00611).  Payment Bond (Section 00616).  General Conditions (Section 00700).  Supplementary Conditions (Section 00731).  Technical Specifications as listed in the Table of Contents, including appendices.  Drawings as listed in the List of Drawings.  Addenda numbers to , inclusive.  Change Orders which may be delivered or issued after Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto. There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Article 6. The Contract Documents may only be amended by Change Order as provided in Paragraph 3.4 of the General Conditions. ARTICLE 7. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. The CONTRACTOR and OWNER acknowledge and agree that they have negotiated the following in accordance with the requirements of RCW 4.24.115 and the CONTRACTOR specifically waives his immunity under industrial insurance under Title 51 RCW. The CONTRACTOR and OWNER acknowledge and agree to the requirements for indemnification in Section 00731 SC-6.20. The provisions of this article shall survive the termination or expiration of this agreement. ARTICLE 8. SUSPENSION OF WORK AND TERMINATION The Contractor agrees to the right of the OWNER to suspend work or terminate this agreement as indicated in Article 15 of Section 00700 (Standard General Conditions) and Section 00731 (Supplementary Conditions). (Contractor Initials) Section 00521 AGREEMENT City of Bremerton 00521-3 April 2019 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW-4 Replacement Issued for Bid ARTICLE 9. ASSIGNMENT No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitation monies that may become due and monies that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. The OWNER, in its sole discretion, may refuse to allow the CONTRACTOR to assign any or all of its duties, rights and/or responsibilities under the Agreement, except with regards to an assignment of funds for security purposes. In the case of an assignment for security purposes the OWNER may condition its approval to the extent it deems necessary to assure that there will be adequate funds to complete the WORK and to pay a subcontractors and suppliers. OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. OWNER : City of Bremerton CONTRACTOR By By [CORPORATE SEAL] Attest Attest Address for giving notices Address for giving notices License No. Approved as to Form: (Signature) Agent for service of process: (Title) VICINITY MAP SEWAGE PUMP STATION CW-4 AND OF-12 10615 Delphi Road SW, Olympia, WA 98512 May 20, 2019 City of Bremerton 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA. 98310 Attn: William Davies, PE and Peter Cunningham, PE Subj: 2019 Sewer Pump Station CW-4 Replacement Dear Bill and Peter: NOVA Contracting, Inc. (NOVA) is writing regarding the above referenced project. NOVA submitted a bid for the above referenced project but was late. NOVA apologizes for being late, but it was not entirely our fault. NOVA submission was late due to last minute electrical bid proposals and confusion as to where to submit the bid proposal to the City. The electrical bid portion of the project was very important. Multiple electrical work locations, generators, pumps and controls, etc. made the electrical work portion of the project a critical aspect. Only two electrical quotations were received with the last quotation received past NOVA’s necessary departure time. NOVA made the decision to delay departure so that the City would receive a more competitive bid proposal for this project. Addendum No.2 dated May 10, 2019, requested bids to be submitted to “Suite 600.” However, upon NOVA’s arrival to Suite 600, they were requested to turn in the bid to “Suite 100.” NOVA would have been on time if there was not a confusion as to where to submit our bid. It has come to our attention that the only bidder for the project was $2,016,500. NOVA’s late bid proposal was for $1,906,083. NOVA suggests that the City rebid the project and save $50,000 – 100,000. NOVA is confident through experience with the City’s staff that the project start date would not be jeopardized in addition to saving the City $50,000 – 100,000. We are aware that to rebid the project would cost the City more time and money but in the end the savings would be well worth it. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me Very Truly Yours: Jordan Opdahl, P.E.; President NOVA Contracting, Inc. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance No. _______ amending Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code related to “Manufactured Homes” and “Group Residential Facilities” Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 5, 2019 Department: DCD Presenter: Allison Satter, Sr. Planner Phone: (360) 473-5845 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 related to the following: 1. Amend the minimum size allowed for manufactured homes (BMC 20.46.040(a)(2)). The BMC requires a minimum width of 24’ of a manufactured home (two 12’ sections), the ordinance would allow the placement of manufactured homes that are 19’ wide (two 9.5 sections) or greater. 2. The Director of Community Development recently made a code interpretation of the definition of “Group Residential Facility” that requires immediate amendment of the City’s zoning code. In addition, siting criteria is proposed to the two zones where Class II facilities are allowed (Industrial and Freeway Corridor zones) that allow Group Residential Facility-Class II housing. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Memo with Director’s Interpretation of Group Residential Facilities B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: March 18, 2019 and April 22, 2019 (Draft) C. Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion for Manufactured Homes Exhibit B: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion for Group Residential Facilities FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No.______ to amending the BMC related to Manufactured Homes, and Group Residential definition and siting criteria for Group Residential Facilities - Class II within the Industrial and Freeway Corridor zones. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A8 Attachment A 1 City Council Memo for June 3, 2019 Public Hearing – Zoning Code Amendment To: City Council From: Allison Satter, Senior Planner Date: May 13, 2019 Subject: Zoning Code Amendments related to Manufactured Home and Group Residential Facilities-Class II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended that the City Council review and approve the proposed Ordinance to make changes to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to modifying the Manufactured Home code and the Group Residential Facility-Class II. Zoning Code Proposed Text Amendments The proposed Ordinance has updates to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 related to two topics: Manufactured Homes and Group Residential Facilities – Class II. This memo summarizes the proposed changes. Manufactured Home Amendments – BMC 20.46.040 Within the City of Bremerton Zoning Code, manufactured homes are allowed as residential units, provided development and design criteria are met pursuant to BMC 20.46.040. The specific provision requested to be amended is the size that a manufactured home must be to be placed on a lot. The code currently requires that a manufactured home must be “comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve (12) feet wide by thirty-six (36) feet long.” Planning Commission has recommended allowing 9.5’ wide instead of 12’ for the sections (to allow a 19’ wide unit instead of a 24’ wide). DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Image: 19’8” double-wide floor plan (two 9¾’ sections) Attachment A 2 City Council Memo for June 3, 2019 Public Hearing – Zoning Code Amendment The primary justification for this update is that the city codes are in conflict and limit the placement of manufactured homes. The City allows all new lots to have a minimum 30’ width. This standard is typical for a city/urban lot of 0.1 acres and many of existing West Bremerton’s lots are about 30’. With a minimum 5’ side - yard setback required on each side (total of 10’), this only allows room for a 20’ wide home. This conflicts with the City’s current manufactured home code, as the minimum width of a manufactured home must be 24’ (two double-wide sections with a minimum 12’ wide for each section). The proposal is to allow 9.5’ wide sections to have a total of 19’ manufactured home (which would fit on a 30’ wide lot with two 5’ side yard setbacks) State law requires that all jurisdictions allow manufactured homes to be placed where single-family homes are allowed, and the State provides a standard code that manufactured homes must meet. In addition, the RCW 35A.63.145(3) allows jurisdictions to alter the manufactured home’s size and design criteria that better suits the specific jurisdiction. Therefore, if the ordinance is passed, this would change the allowed minimum width a manufactured home may be from 12’ double-wide to 9.5’ double-wide sections (to allow a manufactured home with a width of 19’ or greater). Group Residential Definition and Class II Facilities Siting Criteria The Director of Community Development recently made a code interpretation regarding the City’s definition of “Group Residential Facilities,” see Attachment A.1. This interpretation was developed in conjunction with the City Attorney. The document shows the City’s official interpretation of the code and indicates that immediate revision of the code is necessary to Example of a standard residential lot with the building envelope (where the building may be located) is shown in purple dashed-line. The example above has a building envelope of 20’ wide. Minimum lot width: 30’ Attachment A 3 City Council Memo for June 3, 2019 Public Hearing – Zoning Code Amendment ensure compliance with State Law. The recommended amendments, that are unanimously supported the Planning Commission, are seeking to ensure that the city’s regulations do not prohibit the establishment of group quarters for sexually violent predators, which is a type of “group residential facility,” because by law they cannot be prohibited. The amendments also incorporate a Neighborhood Protection Area to protect nearby residents from these group quarters. The amendments before the Council, provided in the Ordinance, concern the following: •A modification to the overall definition of “Group Residential” to reflect the Director’s interpretation. •A modification to the definition of “Group Residential - Class II” to reflect the Director’s interpretation. •Proposed that the code be amended to include a “Neighborhood Protection Area.” The protection area has been established by proposing code amendments that establish siting criteria for “Group Residential – Class II” within the Freeway Corridor (FC) and Industrial (I) districts to ensure separation from any residential uses. Staff has proposed that this protection area be established at 880’, which is the same distance the State Law requires these facilities to be setback from schools. The reader should note that there are only amendments proposed for the FC and I zoning districts because these are the only two zoning districts in the City where Class II facilities can be established. This still allows areas within the City to locate Class II facilities. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission finds that these revisions reflect the input received during the workshop and public hearing and will improve the housing regulations within Bremerton. The updates will allow more manufactured homes within the City to assist in the production of new housing units. The amendments to the Group Residential Facilities – Class II code provisions will provide locations for housing for all Bremerton’s residents. Therefore, the Planning Commission has unanimously recommends that the City Council adopt these code changes as proposed. Attachment A.1 Attachment A.1 Attachment A.1 Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B DRAFT Subject to June 17, 2019 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April 22, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Tift Vice Chair Wofford Commissioner Davis (arrived at 5:42) Commissioner Jones Commissioner Pedersen Commissioners Excused Commissioner Nerf Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Kelli Lambert, Planner II, Department of Community Development Others Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Davis was not present for this vote.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2019 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Davis was not present for this vote.) PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments for Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.46.040 – Manufactured Homes Ms. Satter explained that, as required by State Law, the current City code allows one manufactured home per lot and they must be double wide, with each component at least 12’ wide by 36’ long. Manufactured homes must be new and located on Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 2 of 8 permanent foundations that are attached to the ground, and they must meet design criteria (roof pitch, siding material, etc.) consistent with what is required of all single-family homes. The roof pitch must be greater than 3:12, and they must use the same siding materials that are used on single-family homes. In consideration of the existing lot sizes in Bremerton, as well as the need for more affordable housing, Ms. Satter said staff is proposing a 9.5’ minimum width requirement for each of the components. She explained that the older lots in Bremerton are 30-feet wide, and that is the minimum lot width in residential zones, too. With a 5 ’ setback required on each side, the remaining buildable area is just 20’ wide. Staff’s original proposal was to reduce the width requirement for each component from 12’ to 10’ for a total width of 20’. However, after further consideration, staff learned that the industry standard is actually 19.5’ to allow a few inches for the eves. In order to allow for the industry-sized homes of 19.5’, staff is now proposing that the minimum width of each component be set at 9.5’, which equates to a total width minimum of 19’. Ms. Satter briefly explained that prefabricated homes are homes that are built off site, including both manufactured and modular homes. Manufactured homes have non-removable chassis and are approved at the factory for compliance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Federal code requirements. They are also reviewed by the Department of Labor and Industries when placed on a property. Modular Homes are also built in factories, but they are built to conform to local codes. They are transported on truck beds and do not have non-removable chassis. Ms. Satter emphasized that the current amendment would only apply to manufactured homes. Ms. Satter requested the Commission consider the proposed amendment, conduct a public hearing, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Staff’s intent is to present the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council at a Public Hearing on June 5th. Again, she said the amendment would reduce the minimum size requirement for each section of a double-wide manufactured home from 12’ to 9.5’. Robert Larsen, Carnation, WA, said he supports the proposal because it will only allow new manufactured homes and no single-wide homes will be allowed. The 3:12 roof pitch and setback requirements will make them look more like actual homes. He recalled that in the 1970s, manufactured homes had metal siding and metal roofs, and the roofs were primarily flat. In about 1980, manufacturers started using press board siding and composition roofs. He said he would like to place a manufactured home on a 30’ foot lot he owns in Bremerton, but it is not allowed based on the current width and setback requirements. He commended the City staff for their willingness to address the issue. He shared examples of a variety of multi -sectional, 20’ manufactured homes, noting that they are attractive and will fit well into residential neighborhoods. He encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Chair Wofford asked how the City measures the setback for eves. Ms. Satter answered that the City allows eves to extend up to 2’ into the setback. She explained that many of the older homes were built right on the property line, which me ans there is no longer a 5’ separation between the homes in some cases. As per code, any new structure within 5’ of an existing structure must be constructed of a fire-rated substance. A manufactured home would not meet this requirement and would be penalized if a neighbor’s home is placed on the property line. Reducing the width requirement to 19’ would allow manufactured homes to fit within the building envelope. Chair Tift asked staff to clarify the City’s code related to modular homes. Ms. Satter responded that modular homes are allowed outright. They are typically brought to the site in multiple pieces and built to meet the purchaser’s preferences and local code requirements. Manufactured homes have standard HUD-compliant design that does not take local standards into consideration. Chair Tift inquired about the difference between mobile and manufactured homes. Ms. Satter explained that mobile homes were constructed prior to 1976 under different HUD requirements. The HUD requirements were changed in 1976 and the newer designs were called manufactured homes. Chair Tift asked if the City’s code allows transfer of ownership for manufactured homes. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively, but reminded the Commission that they cannot be moved to another location in the City. Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Davis asked why the City requires manufactured homes to have a 3:12 roof pitch. Ms. Satter said the requirement was taken from the model ordinance that was adopted as the State code. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE AS SHOWN IN REVISED ATTACHMENT A (YELLOW HANDOUT PROVIDED AT THE MEETING) AND BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT B. COMMISSIONER DAVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments for Group Residential Facilities – Class II Ms. Satter advised that the Director of Community Development recently made a code interpretation of the de finition of “Group Residential Facility” that requires an amendment to the City’s zoning code. Because clarity is needed right away to be consistent with State law, the amendments are being presented to the Commission for a public hearing and recommendation without a workshop discussion. The proposed amendments would revise the definition of “Group Residential Facility” (BMC 20.42) and add siting criteria within the Freeway Corridor (BMC 20.86.040) and Industrial (BMC 20.94.030) zones. She sa id the Director’s interpretation will help guide the discussion. Ms. Satter explained that, per the current code, “Group Residential” means a place of residence for persons with physical, developmental or mental disabilities, homeless or otherwise dependent on persons, typically with shared living quarters without separate kitchens. Group homes are intended to provide residential facilities in a home-like environment. Such homes range from licensed establishments operated with 24-hour supervision to non-licensed facilities offering only shelter. The classification includes group care residence for those whose permanent residence is the group residential facility, but it do es not include transient lodging. The definition shall not be construed to include crisis care facilities, detoxification centers or housing of Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs). Group residential facilities are categorized as follows: • Group Residential Home means a residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, or room and board to more than one but not more than six children and/or adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services. These homes have 6 or fewer individuals living in one residence and are allowed outright in all residential zones. • Group Residential Facility – Class I (assisted living) means a group care residence for seven or more children and/or adults who for various reasons cannot reside in their natural homes; and/or for persons who have severe chronic disabilities or physical handicaps that cause substantial functional limitations. The facility may provide physical therapy and training in social skills, but it does not include facilities to which persons are assigned as a result of criminal conviction or those where residents, individually or by their legal guardians, are not free to terminate their residency at will. This use is allowed in all zones where residential uses are allowed by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and outright allowed in some of the “center” zones. • Group Residential Facility – Class II means a group care residence for juvenile delinquents, persons serving a sentence in lieu of confinement, persons needing correctional or mental rehabilitation, or persons needing rehabilitation and treatment for social and/or family problems, drug or alcohol addiction, or abu se. This definition includes programs providing alternatives to imprisonment; transition back into the community including pre -release, work-release, and probationary programs that are under the supervision of a court, state or local agency. Teaching of work or social skills may be provided in this class facility, but it does not include drug or alcohol detoxification centers. Residents do not have the ability to terminate residency at will. This use is only allowed in the Freeway Corridor (FC) and Industrial (I) zones with a CUP. Ms. Satter referred to the Director’s Interpretation 19-003, which was needed to address a conflict between the definition for Group Residential Facilities and State law. She summarized that State law requires governments to allow secure community- based living facilities for all people, including SVPs, but the City’s definition of “Group Residential” (BMC 20.42.040(g)) states that SVPs, as defined by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 71.09.020(18), are not allowed. As there is no legal basis for the City to exclude housing for SVPs from the “Group Residential” category, code changes are needed. Staff is requesting Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 4 of 8 the Commission hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed changes to the definitions to resolve this inconsistency as soon as possible. Ms. Satter said that, as proposed, the 2nd to the last sentence in the definition for “Group Residential” would be amended to eliminate the words, “or housing of sexually violent predators, as defined in RCW 71.09.020(18).” In addition, the following would be added at the end of the 2nd to the last sentence in the definition for “Group Residential Facility – Class II: “and for housing of sexually violent predators as defined in RCW 71.09.020(18).” In addition to the proposed amendments to the definitions, Ms. Satter said staff is also proposing adding siting criteria for Class II Group Residential Facilities. Currently, the use is only allowed in the Freeway Corridor (FC) and I ndustrial (I) zones with a CUP, and staff is proposing additional siting criteria in both the FC and I zones to protect existing residential uses. The proposed amendment would establish a “Neighborhood Protection Area” that requires an 880 ’ buffer from any existing residential use, which is the same distance that State law requires to buffer these uses from schools and would not preclude the use from locating in the City. Again, she advised that the amendment would only impact the FC and I zones, which ar e the only zones where Class II Group Residential Facilities are allowed to locate. Ms. Satter provided a map to illustrate where the FC and I zones are located and advised that the proposal would amend BMC 20.86.040(c) and BMC 20.94.030(c) to add the following siting criteria: “Neighborhood Protection Area: a site containing a Class II Facility shall not be located within 880’ from any parcel containing an existing residential use, including multifam ily and single-family units.” Chair Tift opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Vice Chair Wofford asked if the proposed Neighborhood Protection Area would require Class II Group Residential Facilities to locate at least 880’ away from any residential development that is in the R -10 zone that is located between the FC and I zones. Ms. Satter said the buffer would be measured from the property line containing a residential use out 880’ and a class II facility could not locate in this buffer. She pointed out that 880’ is approximately equal to a typical residential block or 1/6 of a mile. Chair Tift asked if there are places to locate a Class II Group Residential Facility in the I and FC zones given the proposed buffer requirement. Ms. Satter answered that staff analyzed the two zones to verify there would be places for the use to locate in the I and FC zones based on existing conditions. Director Spencer pointed out that the use would also be allowed in the Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton (formerly known as the South Kitsap Industrial Area), which does not have a lot of residential surrounding it. She cautioned against publ ishing maps to pinpoint exactly where the use could locate because residential uses change over time. She summarized that the buffer requirement would make it challenging, but it would not preclude the use from locating in Bremerton. She emphasized that the buffer is intended to protect residential properties and neighborhoods. Vice Chair Wofford asked if the Neighborhood Protection Area would apply to the residential development in the Westhill area. Ms. Satter answered that the buffer would apply to all residential development in the City and County. Commissioner Pedersen observed that State law requires the City to allow the use, so the buffers cannot be set so large that the use is essentially prohibited from locating in the City. Ms. Satter agreed it requires a balancing act to allow housing for all people while protecting the residential neighborhoods. To clarify for Chair Tift, Director Spencer advised that the proposed amendment to this definition is consistent with her recent Director’s Interpretation, with the addition of siting criteria. Without the code amendment, the use would be allowed to locate anywhere in the FC and I zones without any buffer requirement and consideration for residential uses. VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO BMC TITLE 20 AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT B, BASED UPON THE DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION, THE STAFF REPORT, AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT C. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 5 of 8 Chair Tift asked if the proposed new development by Kitsap Mental Health (KMH) near the intersection of Highway 303 and Kitsap Way would be impacted by the proposed amendments. Ms. Spencer answered that the KMH project is not a Class II Group Residential Facility. In addition, the property was recently rezoned to General Commercial (GC), which does not permit Class II Group Residential facilities. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Workshop: Overview of 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Ms. Satter advised that the purpose of the workshop is to present the proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, review the process and timeline, and solicit feedback and direction from the Commission. Following the workshop, staff will conduct additional research, initiate public outreach and complete an environmental/cumulative impact review. Following this work, the Commission will conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation on each of the two pro posed amendments to the City Council, who will make the final decision. Ms. Satter reminded the Commission that, when reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments, they must follow the criteria outlined in BMC 20.10.080. They must verify that all of the pro posed amendments were considered concurrently to assess their cumulative effect onto the City and the environment . They may recommend that the City Council adopt, or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if it is determined that a technical error exists in the pertinent Comprehensive Plan provisions or if all of the following criteria have been met: • The amendment is consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act. • The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other goals and policies of the City. • The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern. • The amendment will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service and bears a reasonable relationship to benefitting the public health, safety and welfare. Ms. Satter advised that the City Council will make the final decision, and they can approve, deny or modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation. However, the Commission’s recommendation will weigh heavily on their decision. She reviewed the two amendments as follows: • Amendment 1: Ms. Satter advised that this amendment would modify the Land Use Element’s Multifamily Residential (MR) land use designation description to increase the density within the district from the existing 20 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre. It would also rename the MR land use designation High Density Residential (HDR). The City recently updated the Comprehensive Plan to increase the Medium Density Residential (MDR) density from 10 dwelling units per acre (MR -10) to 18 dwelling units per acre (MR-18), which is not a lot different than the MR land use designation of 20 dwelling units per acre. When the change was made, staff noted that this district would be impacted and future amendments would be necessary. Ms. Satter referred to the Staff Report, which provides a number of images, including aerial photographs, to illustrate the areas that would be impacted by the proposed change. She summarized that there is not a lot of undeveloped land within the MR zone that would be impacted by the proposed amendment, and she does not anticipate new development that would change the existing neighborhood character. However, the amendment would allow more opportunity for redevelopment and some existing development would be made conforming if the change is made. Ms. Satter advised that the amendment would apply to five areas within the City: 1. Silvan Way and Pine Road (Willow, Ashley Garden and Blueberry Park) 2. Sylvan and Almira Drive (Viewcrest and Tamarack Apartments) 3. Shorewood Drive (Bayshore West Apartments and a few surrounding lots) 4. Anderson Cove (Port Washington Apartments) 5. Lower Wheaton Way (Seaglass Apartments) Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 6 of 8 Ms. Satter summarized that the proposed amendment would increase the density for MR from 20 units per acre to 40 units per acre to more accurately represent the industry standard for High Density Residential and Multifamily zoning, to allow opportunities for redevelopment, and to be similar to current densities that are already developed in these areas. The amendment would also rename the MR land use designation to High Density Residential (HDR). She advised that, if the Commission indicates support for Amendment 1, staff will develop Zoning Code criteria to be consistent with the density increase (i.e. minimum lot size and minimum lot width). Ms. Satter clarified that there are only five areas in the City that are zoned MR, and staff is not proposing to change any other areas, nor are they proposing to expand the boundaries. The amendment would simply change the name and the density allowed. Director Spencer added that the density proposed is reflective of the actual development that is on the ground in each of the areas. Most are developed at the higher density than the current designation and are therefore nonconforming. The amendment would bring more projects into compliance with the current standards. Chair Tift pointed out that there are several parcels in Area 1 that are undeveloped or underutilized. Ms. Satter agreed and said there are some underutilized properties in all of the areas that could be redeveloped. • Amendment 2 Ms. Satter said this is a privately-initiated amendment to change the Land Use Map within the Comprehensive Plan for 22.5 acres off Werner Road from Industrial (I) to Low Density Residential (LDR). She explained that staff’s initial concern is that the proposed amendment will result in a reduction of industrial lands. When industrial lands are lost, they are very difficult to get back. Ms. Satter advised that, when reviewing the proposed amendment, the Commission should keep in mind that the LDR land use designation allows cemeteries, churches, parks, schools and single -family homes. Although the applicant has indicated a particular plan for the site, he would not be bound to that plan once the zonin g is changed. Ms. Satter provided a map to illustrate the location of the subject property. She introduced the applicant, Sterling Griffin from Harbor Custom Homes, and the applicant’s representative, Norm Olson, N.L. Olson & Associates. She emphasize d that the current proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map . If approved, the second process would be a rezone request. Norm Olson, N.L. Olson & Associates, used a map to point out the location of the gravel mine located at the top of Werner Road, the large area of existing R-10 residential property (240 lots) that Mr. Griffin is currently developing, and the subject property. He also noted the steep topography leading to the subject parcels. He said it doesn’t make sense to try to devel op industrial on the subject property, and single-family residential would be a much better option. Regarding staff’s concern about the loss of Industrial zoning, Mr. Olson pointed out that there is a lot of undeveloped land in the Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton, and a cross connecting road has already been constructed in this area. Mr. Olson provided a map showing the subdivided residential lots on the adjacent parcel (R-10) as they really exist and explained that there are both wetland and topographical barriers that provide separation between the subject property and the Industrial zone. He provided an aerial photograph looking east and pointed out the location of the subject property, the gravel mine, a large wetland and buffer, and the existing R-10 lots. He advised that the cliff between the subject property and the gravel mine is more than 70’ tall, and access to the upper portion would have to come through the residential neighborhood. It is not likely that the upper property would ever be developed as an industrial use and a residential use would be more appropriate. In addition, the strip of Industrial zone between the residential lots and the wetland is completely separated from the true industrial area and only accessible via residential development. He expressed his belief that residential development would fit better in this narrow space, too. Mr. Olson advised that utilities are already available to serve additional residential lots on the subject property, and there is a need for additional housing in Bremerton. Some lots on the subject property would have views of the Olympic Mountains, and others would have views of the Cascade Mountains and Puget Sound. Chair Tift recalled that the City granted an easement to the Euland Tree Farm to permit trucks from their gravel pit to get down into Gorst without using Northlake Way. Ms. Satter said the City traded some property, but it was further west and Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 7 of 8 closer to the City utility land. Chair Tift asked if it would be possible to access the subject property from the end of Werner Road, through the center of the gravel pit, intersect with the Euland Tree Farm easement, and drop down into Gorst. Mr. Olsen agreed that would be a great option, and the proposal would not prevent that from happening. Commissioner Davis asked if the gravel mine is currently operating. Mr. Griffin, Harbor Custom Homes, said they purchased the gravel mine at the same time t hey purchased the residential property next door. It was not in production at that time and is still not in production. However, there is a current mining permit for the property. He also advised that a number of large trucks are moving through the area as they excavate for Phases I and II of the adjacent residential development. Mr. Griffin reviewed that the real estate market has seen significant growth over the last several years, and there is a well - documented shortage of homes in both Bremerton and Kitsap County. There is a dramatic need for housing of all types and for all levels of income. He referenced a number of articles and provided links to a variety of websites to confirm the curr ent housing situation. Vice Chair Wofford asked if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been done to determine the impact of residential development on the adjacent wetlands. Mr. Griffin said a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review would be required if the proposed amendment moves forward. He advised that a SEPA review was done on the adjacent 240 -lot subdivision. The wetlands have been mapped, and the buffers have been established by a wetland biologist, and that is how the boundaries of the proposed map change were established. Commissioner Davis asked if staff’s objection is related solely on the loss of Industrial acreage or are there other underlying concerns. Ms. Satter said the concern is primarily related to the loss of Industrial acreage they won’t be able to replace. Director Spencer recalled that Kitsap County was not very supportive of a previous City action that changed the land use on just a few acres of Industrial area, and Puget Sound Regional Council has done a number of studies about the loss of industrial lands. However, the applicant also makes some very compelling arguments about environmental challenges and topography. At the request of Commissioner Davis, Mr. Griffin provided information about the existing and planned infrastructure that would provide water, sewer, fiber optics, etc. to both the 240-lot residential project, as well as the subject property. Director Spencer asked Mr. Griffin to speak about the mining reclamation project. Mr. Griffin explained that, as was made clear when Harbor Custom Homes purchased the land, the mining property had to be reclaimed, and the Department of Natural Resources is providing a mining plan that would require the lower property to be graded for industrial park uses. He summarized that industrial uses make sense on the mining property, but providing access to the upper area for industrial uses would not be practical or feasible. Director Spencer asked what will happen to the steep slopes. Mr. Griffin said he anticipates the cliffs will be cut down some, but they will not be removed. They have purchased equipment that allows for a more environmentally sensitive approach. At the request of Director Spencer, Mr. Olson described how the profile of the cliff and subject property might be altered to accommodate both the reclamation project and development of the subject property. He said he doesn’t have an exact answer at this time. Director Spencer asked how long it would take for the applicant to put together the reclamation plan. Mr. Olson said they don’t have a timeline in place yet. Director Spencer commented that the reclamation plan will be a big part of the City’s consideration as the proposed amendment moves forward, since part of the applicant’s justification for the proposed amendment is based on the huge topographic difference. Vice Chair Wofford asked if the Commissioners could do a site visit to the residential project that is currently in progress. Mr. Griffin said he could set up a time for them to visit the site. He noted that the development is visible from the top of Werner Road. Chair Tift asked about the price range of the 240 homes that are currently being developed. Mr. Griffin said that has not been decided yet, but each lot is approximately 50’ by 100’. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Attachment B DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2019 ~ Page 8 of 8 Chair Tift asked about the vacant position on the Commission, and Director Spencer answered that it is still a work in progress. Director Report Director Spencer advised that, in previous years, Vice Chair Wofford has graciously represented the Commission on the Project Review Committee for the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process, but he is not available to participate this year. She explained that the committee meets each year to review the applications and make a recommendation to the City Council. This year, the committee’s process will start on August 26 th, with an orientation meeting where the participants will receive the applications. The committee members will have a two-week opportunity to review the applications, and then the committee will meet again on September 16th for a scoring workshop, if needed. Interviews are scheduled to take place September 17th and 18th. She requested that another Commissioner volunteer to fill this opportunity and said she would send the information out via email. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Rick Tift, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Attachment B 1 Zoning Code - BMC Updates ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code related to “Manufactured Homes” minimum width, “Group Residential” definition and adding siting criteria to Industrial and Freeway Corridor zones for Group Residential Facilities - Class II. WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need for modification has been identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (“BMC”), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other 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 March 18, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop on the Zoning Code amendments related to Manufactured Homes; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Department of Commerce received the proposed amendments related to the Manufactured Homes pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 for the State’s procedural requirements for agency review; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2019, the proposed Zoning Code amendments related to Manufactured Homes were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2019, a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for the proposed action related to amendments to the Manufactured Homes and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the Department of Commerce received the proposed amendments related to Group Residential Facilities pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 for the State’s procedural requirements for agency review; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the proposed Zoning Code amendments related to Group Residential Facilities were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and 2 Zoning Code - BMC Updates WHEREAS, on April 12, 2019, a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for the proposed action related to the Group Residential Facilities and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2019, 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 April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments related to manufactured homes and group residential facilities-Class II, and formulated a unanimous recommendation that the amendments be adopted by Council; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, 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. The Public Hearing is related to manufactured homes and group residential facilties – Class II. ; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a public hearing on these code changes, 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. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings. The finding and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A related to Manufactured Homes, and Exhibit B related to Group Residential Facilities, are adopted and incorporated as set forth herein in full. SECTION 3. Section 20.46.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Manufactured Homes” is hereby amended to read as follows: 20.46.040 MANUFACTURED HOMES. (a) Manufactured homes are permitted on one (1) individual parcel, lot, or tract in residential zones; provided, that the home is: (1) Approved by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the appropriate certification insignia is affixed to the unit, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.22 RCW; (2) Comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve (12) nine-and-a-half (9.5) feet wide by thirty-six (36) feet long; (3) Set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product which can be either load-bearing or decorative; 3 Zoning Code - BMC Updates (4) Compliant with all local design standards applicable to all other homes within the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located; (5) Thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code; (6) Originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nominal three to twelve (3:12) pitch or greater; (7) Sided with exterior siding similar in appearance to materials commonly used on conventional site-built International Building Code single-family residences; and (8) A new manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160(2). (b) A manufactured home which was legally placed and maintained prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, and does not meet the requirements of this chapter, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming structure. If a legal nonconforming manufactured home is partially or wholly destroyed, replaced, or altered, it shall be required to meet the relevant requirements set forth in the nonconforming provisions of this title. (c) The Building Official or designee shall inspect the installation of manufactured homes prior to occupancy and issue certificates of occupancy for manufactured homes. If all requirements are met, a certificate of occupancy shall be issued. No manufactured home shall be occupied until after the City issues a valid certificate of occupancy. (d) If a manufactured home is replaced by another manufactured home, a new certificate of occupancy shall be required for the installation of a manufactured home after the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter. SECTION 4. Subsection 20.42.040(g) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Definitions ‘G,’” specifically the Group Residential definitions, is hereby amended to read as follows: 20.42.040(G) DEFINITIONS “G” "Garage" means an attached or detached enclosed accessory structure intended primarily for the storage of private vehicles such as automobiles, light trucks or recreational vehicles. "Gas station" means a land use involving the retail sale of gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel or oil, including electric vehicle rapid charging stations. Gas stations include self-service and full-service operations. "Grade" means the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line. When the property line is more than five (5) feet from the building, grade is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface between the building and a line five (5) feet from the building. For structures built over water, "grade" shall mean the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. For the purposes of signs, "grade" is the level of the ground surface immediately below a sign or proposed sign location, and where slope is involved is the average of the levels at each supporting member of the sign’s structure. "Grade plane" and "grade, average final" means a horizontal reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than six (6) feet from the building, between the building and a point six (6) feet from the building. 4 Zoning Code - BMC Updates "Grade, existing" means the grade or topography existing prior to any excavation, clearing, grading or filling. "Gross floor area (g.f.a.)" means the sum of all horizontal areas of floors of a structure when measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls, including glazed or screened porches. "Group residential" means a place of residence for persons with physical, developmental or mental disabilities, homeless or otherwise dependent persons (not including dormitories), typically with shared living quarters without separate kitchen facilities for each room or unit. Group homes are intended to provide residential facilities in a home-like environment. Such homes range from licensed establishments operated with twenty-four (24) hour supervision to nonlicensed facilities offering only shelter. This classification includes group care residence for those whose permanent residence is the group residential facility. It does not include transient lodging. This definition shall not be construed to include crisis care facilities, or detoxification centers or housing of sexually violent predators, as defined in RCW 71.09.020(18). Group residential facilities are categorized as follows: (1) "Group residential home" means a residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room, and board to more than one (1) but not more than six (6) children and/or adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services; provided, however, any limitation on the number of residents resulting from this definition shall not be applied if it prohibits the City from making reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in order to afford such persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(b). (2) "Group residential facility - Class I (assisted living)" means a group care residence for seven (7) or more children and/or adults who for various reasons cannot reside in their natural homes; and/or for persons who have severe chronic disabilities or physical handicaps that cause substantial functional limitations. This facility may provide physical therapy and training in social skills. It does not include facilities to which persons are assigned as a result of criminal conviction or those where residents, individually or by their legal guardians, are not free to terminate their residency at will. (3) "Group residential facility - Class II" means a group care residence for juvenile delinquents, persons serving a sentence in lieu of confinement, persons needing correctional or mental rehabilitation, or persons needing rehabilitation and treatment for social and/or family problems, drug or alcohol addiction, or abuse. This definition includes programs providing alternatives to imprisonment; transition back into the community including prerelease, work-release, and probationary programs that are under the supervision of a court, state, or local agency and for housing of sexual violent predators as defined in RCW 71.09.020(18). Teaching of work or social skills may be provided in this class facility but it does not include drug or alcohol detoxification centers. SECTION 5. Chapter 20.86 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Freeway Corridor” is hereby amended by amending Section 20.86.040 entitled “Coniditional Uses” to read as follows: 5 Zoning Code - BMC Updates 20.86.040 CONDITIONAL USES A conditional use permit, which is approved pursuant to BMC 20.58.020, may permit the following uses: (a) Heavy industrial/manufacturing, provided: (1) All standards of the noise levels ordinance, Chapter 6.32 BMC, are met; (2) No unshielded light or glare will be visible during periods of darkness in a residential zone; (3) No odor, dust or smoke byproduct will be clearly detectable on any adjacent or adjoining commercial or residential lot; (4) The applicant can demonstrate that the use will not significantly detract from the visual character of the area as seen from public rights-of-way or any adjacent lot. Unkept or unsightly storage, refuse, yard, or equipment areas are elements with the potential to negatively impact visual character. (b) Adult business per BMC 20.46.110. (c) Class II group residential facilities Group Residential Facility – Class II, provided: (1) The facility will not create an operational conflict with the efficiency of large-scale freeway-oriented commercial use. , and (2) Neighborhood Protection Area: A site containing a Class II Facility shall not be located within 880’ from any parcel containing an existing residential use, including multifamily and single-family units. The protection area shall not be applied to the residential uses on the east side of Highway 3. SECTION 6. Chapter 20.94 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Industrial” is hereby amended by amending Section 20.94.030 entitled “Conditional Uses” to read as follows: 20.94.030 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted, provided a conditional use permit pursuant to BMC 20.58.020 is approved: (a) Junk yard, provided: (1) The use is not adjacent to a residentially zoned lot; (2) A view-obscuring screen consisting of a solid wall or dense evergreen shrub to a height of ten (10) feet is provided along all lot lines. (b) Adult business as defined in BMC 20.46.110. (c) Class II group residential facilities Group Residential Facility – Class II, provided: the facility will not create an operational conflict with the efficiency of large-scale industrial uses. (1) The facility will not create an operational conflict with the efficiency of large-scale industrial uses, and (2) Neighborhood Protection Area: A site containing a Class II Facility shall not be located within an 880’ from any parcel containing an existing residential use, including multifamily and single-family units. 6 Zoning Code - BMC Updates SECTION 7. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 8. 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 9. 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 ____________________, 2019. _________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2019. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA WOODS, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2019. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2019. ORDINANCE NO. ____________ Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit B Form Created 5/4/15 INFORMATION ONLY ITEM CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Discussion on Streets & Sidewalks Study Session Date: May 22, 2019 Presenter: Knuckey/Hawkins- Bates Phone: (360) 473-2376/5333 SUMMARY: Discussion of Streets and Sidewalks and IMS Data. HANDOUTS: STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation B1 2019 Roadway/ Sidewalk Work Plan and Progress Report 2019 Streets / Sidewalk Work Plan •Minimum 40 Curb Ramps city wide •Minimum 2000 LF of Sidewalk repair (ADA Committee selected, within CDBG area) •HMA overlay on Veldee Ave, 19th St, and Phinney Bay Dr. •Complete/repair sidewalk at 6 sidewalk locations from cancelled Transblue Contract (406 LF in Total) City Crews to complete: •Chip seal up to 35 street segments with Mason County crews (resource dependent) •Chip seal Anderson Hill Road with Kitsap County •Mudjack contract to eliminate trip hazards. Use IMS data to select locations. (Efforts in progress) Work to be contracted out: Status of 2019 Work Plan •22 curb ramps •16th and Warren turn pocket, drainage, sidewalk, signal pole relocation, and 2 additional curb ramps completed for Olympic College and Kitsap Transit Work Completed to date •2000 LF of sidewalk repairs in CDBG area (June 2019) •18 curb ramps (minimum, on-going) •HMA overlay of Veldee Ave, 19th St, Phinney Bay Dr (Summer 2019) •Mason and Kitsap County Chip Seal Work (Summer 2019) •6 sidewalk site locations from Transblue Contract (Fall 2019) •Mudjack contract (Fall/Winter 2019) Work remaining 2019 CDBG Sidewalk Grant •Primary Sidewalk Improvement Sites •Secondary Sidewalk Improvement Sites •–Curb Ramp Improvement Sites •Red outline is CDBG boundary •CDBG grant ($80,505) funds 12 curb ramps and 1000 LF of sidewalk at a minimum. City Crew vs. Contractor Cost •40 Curb Ramps City Crew estimate $3500/ramp = $140,000; *($760,000) •2000 LF of Sidewalk replacement estimated at $90/LF =$180,000 *($300,000) •Olympic College/Kitsap Transit Improvement at 16th St and Warren Ave = approx. $45,000 *($60,000) for city crew and staff time. •Remaining Transblue sites completed by City crews = $34,000 *($60,000) •Mudjack Contract = Estimated at $80,000 •Total City Cost for 2019 Sidewalk = $479,000 *($1,260,000) *(Contract Value for same work based on Project bids, WSDOT Unit Costs, 14% Design Cost, and 10% CM Cost) Next Steps for 2020 and subsequent years •Pursue TIB grant -City construction of missing sidewalk sections. •Develop Complete Streets Committee•Develop sidewalk management program•Develop 3 to 5-year sidewalk work plan •Coordinate letter agreement with PSE to relocate nuisance utility poles •Planned and funded CIP projects Warren Ave Bridge Pedestrian/Bicycle Design Washington Ave and E 11th St –2019 (Design) Kitsap Way SR310 & Warren Ave SR303 Traffic Signal and Multimodal Safety Project -2020 6th Street Preservation Phase I & II –2020 Washington Ave Complete Streets –2020 Naval Ave 1st St to 15th St Road Diet –2020 (Design) Kitsap Lake Elementary SRTS –2021 Perry Ave and E 11th St TIB –2021