The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/17/2021 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 - Phone (360) 473-5280 * * * A M E N D ED * * * WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 CITY COUNCIL Virtual/Live Stream MEETING AGENDA To help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting a virtual meeting. The Chambers will be closed, and all Council Members and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. The public is invited to view and/or participate in the Council Meeting through one of the following options: To stream online only (via BKAT Feed, with no interaction possible): https://bremerton.vod.castus.tv/vod/?live=ch1&nav=live To Join the Zoom Meeting, members of the public are invited to click the link below: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86511475911?pwd=em9lc0VicCt0L055ZGo5MXBnUlVwQT09 Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,86511475911#,,,,*209823# or +16699006833,,86511475911#,,,,*209823# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 865 1147 5911 Passcode: 209823 Public questions or comments may be submitted ahead of time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us 1.CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. 2.EXECUTIVE SESSION Added A. 30-Minutes to discuss Potential Litigation as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1)(i) Action is anticipated... 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.Claims & Check Register B.Minutes of Meeting – February 3, 2021 C.Minutes of Study Session – February 10, 2021 D.Confirm Reappointment of Holly James to the Civil Service Commission E.Confirm Appointment of Erin Hatch to the Design Review Board F.2021 Excess Liability Insurance with Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Allied World Assurance Company; Excess Workers Compensation with Midwest Employers Casualty Company; and Cyber Insurance with Indian Harbor Insurance Company G.Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Kitsap Special Assault Investigations and Victim’s Services Continued on next page… H. Contract with Active Construction, Inc. for the Kitsap Way (Ostrich Creek) Culvert Replacement Project I. Purchase of Equipment from PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. of Tacoma, WA for the Streets Division J. Management Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Government Center Owners Association 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on proposed Ordinance amending Section 20.46.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units per Single Family Lot (The Public Hearing is to receive Public Comment only; there will be no Council action tonight...) 5. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Agreement with Kitsap County Department of Human Services for Behavioral Health Navigator Services B. Ordinance No. 5414 amending Section 10.10.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled “Parking Code” relating to Parking Permits and Parking in the Right-of-Way and on City Property C. Public Works Agreement with Spectra Contract Flooring for the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Project D. Ordinance No. 5415 amending Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to promotions and benefits 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING City Council Meeting February 17, 2021 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION Added A. 30-minutes to discuss Potential Litigation as allowed under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Action is anticipated… February 17, 2021 Bremerton City Council Meeting ITEM 2A – EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion: Move to acknowledge that Council Position for District Number 6 is vacant pursuant to the City Charter due to the absence of Mike Simpson from the City for more than 30 days without the consent of Council. Main Motion: Move to approve the appointment of Mike Simpson to City Council District Position No. 6. Amended Motion: Move to approve the appointment of Mike Simpson to City Council District Position No. 6 with approval of Mr. Simpson’s absence from the City through the end of April 2021, unless otherwise extended by City Council, and virtual attendance of City Council meetings during his absence. Main Motion As Amended: Move to approve the appointment of Mike Simpson to City Council District Position No. 6 with approval of Mr. Simpson’s absence from the City through the end of April 2021, unless otherwise extended by City Council, and virtual attendance of City Council meetings during his absence, as amended. From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:36 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Importance: High Attn: Council Members (FYI) From: Kevin Gorman Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:28 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Fw: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Hi Lori, Please distribute asap to all council. We will be holding an executive session prior to tonight's meeting to discuss potential litigation. Thank you, Kevin Gorman Council President City of Bremerton From: Brett Jette <Brett.Jette@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:09 PM To: Kevin Gorman <Kevin.Gorman@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Roger Lubovich <Roger.Lubovich@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Kevin, Attached is the memo that the Mayor has waived privilege for. Best, Brett From: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:06 PM To: Roger Lubovich <Roger.Lubovich@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Brett Jette <Brett.Jette@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege I agree to waive Attorney-Client Privilege for the attached document in this email. Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 From: Brett Jette Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 1:27 PM To: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Roger Lubovich <Roger.Lubovich@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Mayor, Attached is the memorandum we received from outside counsel. Roger will be calling to discuss this with you in a moment, but we are seeking your approval to waive the attorney-client privilege on this memorandum in order to provide it to all the Council and Mike Simpson. If after your discussion, you approve of waiving that privilege, please reply to this email confirming that approval. Best, Brett M. Jette Assistant City Attorney City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 473-2336 Brett.Jette@ci.bremerton.wa.us ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION This e-mail message and its attachments may contain confidential attorney work product and be subject to the attorney-client communication privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete and/or destroy the original and all copies of the e-mail message. {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2021 TO: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney CITY OF BREMERTON FROM: W. Scott Snyder RE: Review of Application of Article II, Section 9, And Vacancy In Office This review of the application of the Bremerton Charter’s vacancy provisions to a recent situation is provided in a less formal format to permit its dissemination in a manner intended to preserve the attorney client privilege. i FACTS On December 24, 2020, then Council President Eric Younger notified the members of the Bremerton City Council that Councilmember Mike Simpson would travel for work to Japan and that arrangements were made for his electronic virtual attendance at City Council meetings. Mr. Simpson notified the Council of his safe arrival in Japan on December 30, 2020. The work assignment is unrelated to City business. The City Council has not acted formally at a public meeting on the record to approve his absence from the City. Issues for review. How should the provisions of Article II of City Charter be applied and what courses of action are available to the City Council? Conclusions. 1. Pursuant to Article II, Section 9 of the Bremerton Charter, the position of the Councilmember became vacant upon Mr. Simpson’s continuous absence from the City for thirty days without Council Consent. 2. The Washington Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) requires that any action or final action of the City Council occur only at a properly noticed regular or special Roger Lubovich, City Attorney February 16, 2021 Page 2 {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } meeting of the Council by a majority vote on the record of the proceeding. Any approval outside of a meeting is null and void under the OPMA. 3. The City Council may: a. Proceed to fill the vacancy in accordance with Article II, Section 10 of the City's Charter; or b. Attempt to retroactively approve the Councilmember's absence from the City. RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend that given that a majority of the remaining Councilmembers is required to either appoint a successor or excuse an absence, that the City Council use the Charter’s established process to fill the vacancy. The City Council may appoint the former Councilmember or appoint another citizen in its sound legislative discretion. DISCUSSION The City of Bremerton is a first class City and it has adopted a City Charter. Article II of the City's Charter addresses elective officers of the City and section 9 establishes how a vacancy occurs. In pertinent part Article II, Section 9 states: The position of an elected officer shall become vacant upon the occurrence of any of the following events:...(6) Continuous absence from the City for more than thirty days during a term of office without consent of Council, unless on the business of the City. For context Section 10 which governs the filling of vacancies provides that: (i) If, after thirty days have passed since the occurrence of a vacancy, the Council is unable to agree upon a person to be filled...) the mayor may make the appointment. Emphasis added. Accordingly, the date of occurrence of a vacancy is governed by the terms of the Charter and the timing of the vacancy is critical to the process. The City’s Charter prevision is unique to your city, but the Washington courts have dealt with the issue of when a vacancy occurs in the context of a vacancy by resignation. The common law rule Roger Lubovich, City Attorney February 16, 2021 Page 3 {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } in Washington regarding vacancy by resignation was established in 1907 in State ex rel Royse v. Superior Court of Kitsap County, 91 P 4 (1907). Under the common law rule a vacancy occurs when the resignation of a public official is accepted by the action of the governing body such as a City or County Council. Royse at 622-23. This common law rule continued in effect until the adoption of RCW 42.12.010 in 1981. Although this statute is not applicable to the City of Bremerton given the adoption of its Charter, the language of the statute and the way it was applied and interpreted by the Washington Court of Appeals is instructive. The statute on vacancies provides that a vacancy occurs upon the effective date of a resignation. Much like Bremerton’s Charter, the focus is on the occurrence of an event, not on the City council’s response to the event. In Munroe v. Poulsbo a Councilmember resigned during the course of the council meeting indicating that her resignation was effective immediately. The Councilmember attempted to rescind her resignation and the City Council appointed a successor. The former Councilmember then brought a quo warranto writ action in Kitsap County Superior Court to challenge the newly appointed Councilmember’s right to office. The Court of Appeals upheld a superior court ruling that the Royse common law doctrine was legislatively overturned by the adoption of the statute vacancies. The court found that the terms of the statute were self- executed, that is, occurred when the standard established by the statute had been met. As the court noted statutes are interpreted to give their terms their "usual and ordinary meaning" when undefined. Bremerton has adopted its own home rule charter which establishes provisions parallel to those of RCW 42.12.010 but significantly different in some respects from the statutes that govern vacancies in other classes of cities. iiThe language of your Charter provides that a vacancy occurs upon "continuous absence from the City for more than thirty days..." The Councilmember admittedly has been and remains absent from the City. Accordingly, the terms of the Charter have been met and no action of the City Council is required to declare the position vacant and thereby trigger the vacancy. The Council position became vacant under the language of the Charter thirty days after Mr. Simpson left the City on or about December 30, 2020. No prior action of the City Council approved the absence. It cannot be contended that the City Council gave implied consent to his absence by its failure to act and by permitting Mr. Simpson to participate in at least one Council meeting after the thirty day period had elapsed. The Open Public Meetings Act generally provides that City Councilmembers may take action only at a regularly scheduled or noticed special meeting. “Action” as broadly defined as the "transaction of the official business" of the City and “final action” means "a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a government body." Any attempted action taken outside of a public meeting is in violation of the provisions of the OPMA and "shall be null and void..." No action of the City Council authorizing the absence from the city is recorded nor has this matter appeared on the Council agenda. It is my understanding that the specific provision of the Charter Roger Lubovich, City Attorney February 16, 2021 Page 4 {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } has never been applied and that the City Council has not in the past approved the absence of any Councilmember from the City either before or after the fact. The City Council accommodated the illness of a member, but my understanding is that the ill Councilmember remained within the City. As noted earlier, there are significant differences between the triggering events noted in the Charter and those provided by statute for other classes of Cities. The Charter creates a vacancy when an elected official is absent from the City for thirty continuous days. RCW 35A.12.060 on the other hand provides that a position shall become vacant if the Councilmember fails to attend “three consecutive regular meetings” without being excused by the Council. The Bremerton Charter has no similar provision regarding meeting attendance. Current pandemic and the use of virtual meetings create a situation never contemplated by the framers of the Bremerton Charter—one in which a Councilmember can fulfill his duties remotely while absent from the City. Regardless, the wording of the Charter as adopted by the voters of Bremerton controls. The Munroe v. City of Poulsbo case also disposed of a claim by the vacated official similar to one that could be raised here. The former Councilmember argued that since the City Council had previously accepted resignations by formal action the City was equitably estopped from arguing that the vacancy occurred without the need for action by the council. The doctrine of estoppel is an equitable doctrine based on the concept that if a person or entity, by its actions invites a party’s action, it is estopped, prevented, from later challenging that action. The doctrine is based on the principal that a party should not be allowed to profit from its misdeeds. As the Court of Appeals noted, the doctrine did not apply to require consistent action by the Poulsbo City Council and that the language of the statute is controlling. The vacancy occurred regardless of whether or not the Council acted on it. It is my opinion that in this case, the vacancy occurred at the expiration of the 30th day after Mr. Simpson left the City. Applying the principal to your situation, the vacancy has occurred, and it is too late for the city council to approve the absence. iiiThis reading is consistent with Article II, Section 10 which provides that for the appointment of a successor first by the Council for a period of thirty days and then by the Mayor. The process is triggered by certain events and the time periods are measured “since the date of the occurrence.” ivTherefore, the need for certainty regarding the date of the vacancy is key to the process. The vacancy having already occurred, I suggest it is incumbent upon the City Council to proceed to fill the vacancy. Since a majority of the Council will be necessary to fill the vacancy, the City Council could, in the firm exercise of its legislative discretion, fill the position either through the appointment of the former Councilmember or another citizen in accordance with the procedures in the charter. I recommend that you proceed with the process in a timely manner. While the City Council could attempt to retroactively approve the absence, that retroactive approval would require the same majority as the appointment of a new Councilmember. As briefly noted, retroactive approval of the absence is subject to legal challenge and a ready alternative exists in re- appointment, should the City Council so choose. Please note that since the vacancy has occurred the current Council consists of six elected Councilmembers and in my opinion the former Councilmember should not be counted for a Roger Lubovich, City Attorney February 16, 2021 Page 5 {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } quorum. Neither is Mr. Simpson within the elected officials of the City to whom the attorney- client privilege applies. Accordingly, we have discussed providing any detailed response to Council questions or concerns regarding the risks associated with the options available to the City Council in executive session. An executive session could be held under the provisions of RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii) to discuss the legal risks associated with the proposed action(s). As a practical matter since the same Council majority of four Councilmembers would be required to appoint a successor as to retroactively approve an absence, I suggest that the Council consider taking the relatively risk-free action of reappointment. If, in the exercise of its sound legislative discretion, the City Council elects to reappoint the former Councilmember or a new appointee, such a decision would be given significant deference by a reviewing court should a writ action be brought to review the appointed Councilmember’s right to hold office. Please note that the structure of the Bremerton Charter is unique regarding the thirty-day requirement and significantly different than that of the state statutes governing other classes of city. I can find no precedent other than the Munroe v. Poulsbo case that sheds any light on your dilemma. I suggest that the City Council take advantage of the opportunity to resolve this matter through the exercise of its legislative discretion under the terms of your Charter. Respectfully submitted, W. Scott Snyder 1 Given my conclusions, Councilmember Simpson’s council position is now vacant. Release of attorney client information to the former Councilmember could result in the loss of the privilege. Accordingly, this review is limited to application of the City Charter to this fact situation in light of Washington statute and case law but reserves discussion of the potential legal risks associated with various courses of action available to the City Council for provision at an executive session called pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)-(iii). I assume the adoption and amendment of the Charter were valid and the validity of the Charter provisions in question as well as the facts provided.i 2 State ex rel. Munroe v. City of Poulsbo, 109 Washington Appellate 672 (Division Two, 2002). 3 See for Example RCW 35.A.12.060 and later discussion. 4 RCW 42.30.020(3). 5 RCW 42.30.060. 6 Munroe at 681. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney February 16, 2021 Page 6 {WSS2367683.DOCX;4/13127.000001/ } 7 Bremerton Charter Article II, Section 10(2). 8 Bremerton Charter Article II, Section 10(2). From: Eric Younger <eric.younger@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 9:39 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Roger Lubovich <Roger.Lubovich@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Travel for work Council: Council member Simpson has orders to travel to Japan for work for approximately the next 4 months. He has made arrangements with our IT Department to be able to use his IPad to attend all Council meetings via Zoom in the same capacity as we have this past year. Mike will let the Council President know if any issues come up that preclude him from attending any meetings or addressing any issues that come up in his District. I am aware that the City Council has made accommodations in the past for members experiencing an extended illness. Given that Mike is traveling on orders of the PSNS and we attend all our meetings virtually anyway (which likely will last well past April) I do not see this being an issue. I have discussed this with City Attorney Roger Lubovich as well. Happy Holidays - Eric AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: N/A Claims & Check Register COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Legal Services Presenter: Angela Hoover Phone: (360) 473-5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1. Check Numbers 392591-392767 and Electronic Fund Transfers V32306-V32364 in the grand total amount of $2,253,006.35 2. Regular Payroll for pay period ending January 31, 2021 in the amount of $865,918.79 ATTACHMENTS: 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 approve the consent agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3A AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting – February 3, 2021 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on February 3, 2021 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the February 3, 2021 Meeting Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 3B 2 CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, February 3, 2021 A virtual meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 5:30 PM with Council President Kevin Gorman presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, and Leslie Daugs. Council Member Pat Sullivan was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Angela Hoover; Legislative Office Manager Lori Smith; and Kelly Wells, Information Technology. President Gorman read a statement that per an amending proclamation issued by Governor Inslee extending the “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” order to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the Council Meetings are allowed to be conducted virtually until the order is rescinded… CONSENT AGENDA 2A – Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 392456 through 392590 and EFT-V32236 through EFT-V32305 in the amount of $2,436,467.32; Regular Payroll for Pay Outs ending December 31, 2020 in the amount of $1,568.00; Regular Payroll for pay period ending January 15, 2021 in the amount of $966,336.94; and Retiree Payroll for pay period ending January 31, 2021 in the amount of $53,136.23 2B – Minutes of Meeting – January 20, 2021 2C – Minutes of Study Session – January 27, 2021 2D – Minutes of Joint Planning Session – January 30, 2021 2E – Public Works Agreement with Pipeline Video Inspection LLC dba AIMS Companies for Burwell/Warren Sewer Pipe Cleaning and Video Inspection 2F – Five-Year Contract Extension Addendum to Maintenance Agreement with Otis Elevator Company for Elevator Service, Maintenance, and Monitoring There were no questions or comments from the public… 5:33 M/S/C/U (Wheat/Daugs) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. GENERAL BUSINESS – There were no General Business items… MAYOR’S REPORT – Mayor Wheeler…  Commented that Saturday’s Joint Planning Session with Council Members and Department Directors was very productive;  Was pleased the Bremerton National Airport was still on the shortlist of 6 facilities being considered to undergo future commercial air expansion; and  Proclaimed how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful part of the country; and proudly announced that Bremerton has been chosen for several national recognitions including the 39th Most Affordable Beach Town in America (2021); one of the Top 50 Metros in the United States to Get Physically Fit (2021); 3rd Most Affordable City for Tech Workers (2020); and one of the 9th Most Arts-Vibrant Mid-Sized Areas (2020). PUBLIC RECOGNITION Anna Mockler reiterated her request for Council to provide the status of COVID-19 using information from the Kitsap Public Health District; and encouraged Council Members and the community to please support local food banks. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2021 Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Leslie Daugs mentioned that at the next Study Session, she plans to provide a briefing on the Audit Committee meeting held last night; expressed condolences to all the friends and families affected by the tragic death of a 16-year old Bremerton girl on Saturday; and cautioned drivers to be especially careful now that children are back in school. Lori Wheat in support of Black History Month, encouraged everyone to read something related to social justice, noting that she chose to read the true story “Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption”, invited the community to join the Bremerton Night Time Book Club “B-Town Bookers” that meets by Zoom the first Monday of each month; wished everyone a Happy Groundhog Day; agreed with Mayor Wheeler that we are lucky to live in the Pacific Northwest; and when celebrating Valentine’s Day later this month, to also remember to practice love and compassion for ourselves and others. Michael Goodnow shared the concern caused by two persons close to him before they thankfully tested negative for COVID-19, and to save others from the same stress, encouraged everyone to continue doing their part so we can all get back to a normal life soon. Mike Simpson thanked Mayor Wheeler for talking about the highlights of living in this area, which he agreed with; instead of Groundhog Day, described a festival celebrated in Japan called Setsubun that is observed each year on February 3 to celebrate the beginning of spring, and a new start that offers a chance to get rid of evil spirits; reminded people to do what is needed to be safe and healthy during the pandemic and emphasized the importance of discussing the end of the lockdown with legislators. Kevin Gorman was pleased to announce that after a 6-hour Joint Planning Session last Saturday, the 2021 City Council Goals & Priorities were established; and reminded the public that the Study Session would be held remotely next week on Wednesday, February 10, 2021. With no further business, President Gorman adjourned the Council Meeting at 5:51 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 17th day of February, 2021. ________________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, City Council President Attest: ________________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KG:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session – February 10, 2021 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Study Session held on February 10, 2021 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Study Session Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the February 10, 2021 Study Session Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 3C 22C CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, February 10, 2021 A virtual Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:00 PM, with Council President Kevin Gorman presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Lori Smith, Legislative Office Manager, was present to provide staff support. President Gorman established that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting the Study Session via a Zoom webinar with Council Members and staff participating remotely. He further established that the Study Session was open for the public to listen in, but there would be no opportunities for input; no action is anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the Council, items will be placed on the February 17, 2021 City Council Meeting Agenda… A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA ITEMS 1. Confirm Reappointment of Holly James to the Civil Service Commission Consent Agenda 2. Confirm Appointment of Erin Hatch to the Design Review Board Consent Agenda 3. 2021 Excess Liability Insurance with Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Allied World Assurance Company; Excess Workers Compensation with Midwest Employers Casualty Company; and Cyber Insurance with Indian Harbor Insurance Company Consent Agenda 4. Agreement with Kitsap County Department of Human Services for Behavioral Health Navigator Services General Business 5. Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Kitsap Special Assault Investigations & Victims Services Consent Agenda 6. Goods and Services Agreement with Petrocard, Inc. for Gasoline, Related Products, and Fuel Supply Services for the Fleet Management Division Item Pulled 7. Ordinance amending Section 10.10.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled “Parking Code” relating to Parking Permits and Parking in the Right-of-Way and on City Property General Business 8. Public Works Agreement with Spectra Contract Flooring for the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Project General Business 9. Contract with Active Construction, Inc. for the Kitsap Way (Ostrich Creek) Culvert Replacement Project Consent Agenda 10. Purchase of Equipment from PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. for the Streets Division Consent Agenda President Gorman called a break from 6:56 to 7:03 PM… 11. Ordinance amending Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to Promotions and Benefits General Business 12. Confirm Appointment of John Payne as the Assistant Fire Chief at Pay Band 22, Rate 5 of the 2021 Management Professional, Confidential and Fiduciary Salary Plan Item Pulled… City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Council Member Simpson left the meeting at approximately 7:31 PM, and did not return… 13. Management Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Government Center Owners Association Consent Agenda 14. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance amending Section 20.46.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units” to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units per Single-Family Lot Public Hearing B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Briefing on Audit Committee (02/02/21 Meeting) – Chair Leslie Daugs o Other General Council Business was discussed. President Gorman reminded the public that all meetings will be held remotely until further notice, including the next regular Council Meeting on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM. With no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 8:30 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 17th day of February, 2021. ______________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President ATTEST: ______________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KG:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Reappointment of Holly James to the Civil Service Commission Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the reappointment of Holly James to the Civil Service Commission. Her current term expires February 15, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Application to the committee is available in the Mayor’s Office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA:☒Limited Presentation ☐Briefing/Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐General Business ☐Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointment of Holly James to the Civil Service Commission for the term expiring February 17, 2024. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3D x AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Appointment of Erin Hatch to the Design Review Board Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the appointment of Erin Hatch, a marketing director with a Seattle architecture firm, to the Design Review Board Position 5, to replace Dean Kelly, who is stepping down. Ms. Hatch is a City of Bremerton resident since 2016. The Position 5 term expires December 31, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: Application is available in the Mayor’s Office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Briefing/Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the appointment of Erin Hatch to Design Review Board, Position 5 for the term expiring December 31, 2024. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3E AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: 2021 Excess Liability Insurance with Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Allied World Assurance Company; Excess Workers Compensation with Midwest Employers Casualty Company; and Cyber Insurance with Indian Harbor Insurance Company Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: City Attorney’s Office – Risk Management Presenter: Melisa Vaal Folmer Phone: (360) 473-5302 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Code authorizes the Risk Management Specialist, with the approval of the City Attorney, to bind insurance and requires City Council approval for the continuation of any bound coverage that exceeds an annual premium of $25,000. Excess Liability, Excess Workers’ Compensation, and Cyber Insurance for 2021 have been bound as follows: 1. Excess liability insurance with Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Allied World Assurance Company at an annual premium of $463,798 (including terrorism); and 2. Excess workers’ compensation insurance with Midwest Employers Casualty Company at an annual premium of $89,317; and 3. Cyber insurance with Indian Harbor Insurance Company at an annual premium of $40,840. ATTACHMENTS: No attachments. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): There is a significant increase in rates due to the market this year and a midyear budget adjustment will need to be done. 2020 Rates Budgeted for 2021 2021 Rates Excess Liability $192,257 $230,708 (20% increase) $463,798 Excess WC $70,058 $75,312 (7.5% increase) $89,317 Cyber $20,420 $21,441 (5% increase) $40,840 STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the purchase of the 2021 excess liability insurance bound with Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Allied World Assurance Company in the amount of $463,798; excess workers’ compensation insurance with Midwest Employers Casualty Company in the amount of $89,317; and cyber insurance with Indian Harbor Insurance Company in the amount of $40,840. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3F AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Kitsap Special Assault Investigations and Victim’s Services COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Police Presenter: Kevin Crane Phone: 360.473.5480 SUMMARY: Member agencies to improve services to victims of domestic and sexual abuse, improve the quality of criminal investigations by streamlining contacts with the victim, coordinate investigative needs, make more efficient use of limited resources, and establish a joint fundraising support network. ATTACHMENTS: Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Kitsap Special Assault Investigations and Victim’s Services (Kitsap S.A.I.V.S.) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No increase or decrease to the budget of a member agency shall occur without approval of the governing authority of the member agency. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Kitsap Special Assault Investigations and Victim’s 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 3G Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 1 AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT for KITSAP SPECIAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS AND VICTIM’S SERVICES (KITSAP S.A.I.V.S.) THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the undersigned members of Kitsap S.A.I.V.S., pursuant to provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 RCW. This Amended and Restated Agreement replaces all prior Interlocal Agreements for Kitsap SAIVS in their entirety. Definitions For the purposes of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, and all other agreements, contracts, and documents executed, adopted, or approved pursuant to this Agreement, the following terms have the meaning prescribed to them in this section unless the context of their use dictates otherwise: (1) “Member agency” means any public law enforcement or investigative agency which is a party or becomes a party to this Interlocal agreement and is a County, City, State or federally recognized Tribal law enforcement or investigative agency within the region. (2) “State” means the State of Washington. (3) “Region” means the territory physically lying within the boundaries of Kitsap County. (4) “Council” means the governing joint board of the Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. Center comprised of the head of each member agency, or the agency’s designee. (5) “Center” means the Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. center. (6) “Joint operating agreement” or “Agreement” or “ILA” means this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement executed by member agencies. (7) “Majority vote” means more than one-half of the votes cast when a quorum is present and must include at least one vote of a County law enforcement representative and at least one vote of the law enforcement representative from each of at least two separate cities. (8) “Quorum” means a majority of the member agencies. Recitals WHEREAS, the undersigned member agencies recognize the need and desirability for coordination, cooperation, and consultation among members to improve services provided to victims of domestic and sexual abuse, improve the quality of criminal investigations by Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 2 streamlining contacts with the victim, coordinate investigative needs, make more efficient use of limited resources, and establish a joint fundraising support network, thereby better serving our communities; WHEREAS, the undersigned member agencies believe that special assault investigations and victim services usually conducted by each member agency can be coordinated and combined, and duplication eliminated, in all or in part, by the creation and operation of a center where such activities can be performed through participation among member agencies; WHEREAS, chapter 26.44 RCW and chapter 74.34 RCW encourage the use of multidisciplinary teams to coordinate criminal cases involving children and vulnerable adults; and WHEREAS, the undersigned member agencies desire to establish a funding mechanism for the creation and operation of a center whereby certain of the functions of each member agency can be met more efficiently with regard to the needs of special assault criminal investigations and the needs of special assault victims. THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenants, the undersigned members agree as follows: 1. ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION AND NATURE The undersigned member law enforcement and investigative agencies, represented by the elected official and/or head of each member agency, constitutes the Council of Kitsap S.A.I.V.S.: Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney, Kitsap County Sheriff, City of Bainbridge Island Police Department, City of Bremerton Police Department, City of Port Orchard Police Department, City of Poulsbo Police Department, the Department of Social and Health Services Child Protective Services (CPS), Naval Criminal Investigative Services, Kitsap County Clerk, and any other public agency that becomes a member agency by future vote of the Council. This Agreement does not create a separate legal or administrative entity. This joint operating agreement memorializes an unincorporated association of governments for purposes of collaboration between them, each exercising independent power, privileges, and/or authority in the performance of this Agreement. All persons performing activities pursuant to this Agreement shall remain employees of their member law enforcement and investigative agencies, and the acts of a person performing activities pursuant to this Agreement are the acts of such person’s employing member agency. The Council constitutes the joint board formed for the cooperative purposes described in this joint operating agreement. The affairs of the Council are governed by this Agreement and by the Council’s Bylaws and are otherwise limited only by limitations in the powers, privileges, or authority exercised or capable of exercise by a member agency. 2. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSES Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 3 The Council has the following authority and purposes: To act on behalf of member agencies to fund, establish, and operate a physical Center where certain functions of each individual agency can be met with regard to special assault criminal investigations and the needs of special assault victims, and to establish a funding mechanism to support the establishment and continued operation of the Center. 3. FUNDING The Council may apply for, accept, hold, invest, and administer any gifts, legacies, bequests, devises, funds, and property from public or private sources of any sort or nature, and may use and expend such funds and property to accomplish the purposes of this joint operating agreement. A member agency’s total financial contributions to Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. shall form the basis of their proportional contribution in the event of termination and disposal of assets. 4. SERVICE PROVISIONS Funds obtained by the Council for Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. shall be used solely for the purposes described in this joint operating agreement. All expenditures are subject to the review and approval of the Council, and periodic audits will be performed as prescribed by law. The Council will maintain records of Council meeting minutes. Records prepared, compiled, generated, or used of activities performed pursuant to this Agreement by member agencies shall be maintained by those member agencies. 5. FISCAL YEAR AND BUDGET The fiscal year coincides with the calendar year. The Council will adopt an annual work program and budget in advance of each fiscal year that identifies anticipated activities, goals, revenues and expenditures for completing the joint operating agreement. The Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney shall administer the S.A.I.V.S. Fund in accordance with applicable laws, this Interlocal Agreement, and any other policies and procedures adopted by the Council. The Treasurer of Kitsap County shall be the custodian of funds made available for the purposes of this joint operating agreement, and the Treasurer may make payments from such funds upon audit by the appropriate auditing officer of the County. After the Council has approved the final budget, it is forwarded to Kitsap County for review and inclusion as a distinct agency fund within the Kitsap County Budget. No increase or decrease to Kitsap S.A.I.V.S.’s final budget shall occur without review and approval of governing authorities. No increase or decrease to the budget of a member agency shall occur without approval of the governing authority of the member agency. 6. PROPERTY Personal and real property contributed by a member agency to be utilized in performing the activities described in this Agreement shall remain the property of the agency that contributed the property. Property acquired with joint S.A.I.V.S. funds shall be held jointly by member agencies in proportion to their financial contributions to S.A.I.V.S. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 4 7. DURATION/WITHDRAWAL FROM AGREEMENT This agreement shall continue in force until terminated by majority vote of the Council. Any member agency has the right to withdraw from this Interlocal Agreement by giving the Council six (6) months prior written notice. Unless otherwise provided by future agreement, any member agency that withdraws shall remain responsible for its financial and other obligations with regard to Council activities until the effective date of withdrawal and with regard to agreements to which the Council is a party which exist at the time of such notice of withdrawal. A member agency’s proportional contribution shall be determined as of the date the Council receives the withdrawing agency’s notice of withdrawal. It is within the discretion of the Council to delay payment of the withdrawing agency’s proportional contributions until termination of this agreement and disposal of Kitsap S.A.I.V.S.’ assets as more fully described elsewhere in this agreement. 8. DISPOSAL OF ASSETS Upon termination of this agreement any assets acquired for Kitsap S.A.I.V.S., after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses and charges validly incurred under this agreement, shall be distributed to all member agencies in proportion to their contributions to Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. determined at time of termination. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Center shall not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any member agency. 9. DISPUTES Disputes between member agencies regarding interpretation of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement or the functioning of Kitsap S.A.I.V.S. shall be resolved by submission to binding mediation. 10. MODIFICATION The Council may amend this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. Amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and executed with the same formalities as used for the execution of this document. 11. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE All member agencies expressly agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Kitsap County Superior and District Courts. 12. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement, and the remaining rights and obligations of the undersigned members, shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the invalid part. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 5 13. EFFECTIVE DATE This joint operating agreement shall take effect on the date executed by two or more member agencies. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entirety of the agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior agreements concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. No other agreement, representation, or understanding of any kind or nature, whether oral or written, whether actual or alleged, and whether arising or alleging arising before, during or after execution of this Agreement shall be binding upon any party, unless such is expressly set forth in a written amendment to this Agreement duly executed by the parties. 15. COUNTERPARTS; E-MAIL OR FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION The parties may execute this Agreement in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute only one agreement. Further, delivery of a signed copy of this Agreement via e-mail or facsimile transmission shall be considered delivery of an original. Joseph Clark Chief of Police, City of Bainbridge Island Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 Jim Burchett Chief of Police, City of Bremerton Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 Matt Brown Chief of Police, City of Port Orchard Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 Ron Harding Chief of Police, City of Poulsbo Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 _______ Chad M. Enright Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for S.A.I.V.S. – Page 6 Gary Simpson Kitsap County Sheriff Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2021 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Contract with Active Construction, Inc. for the Kitsap Way (Ostrich Creek) Culvert Replacement Project COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: PW&U - Engineering Presenter: Gunnar Fridriksson Phone: (360) 473-5758 SUMMARY: The existing 1927 vintage 3-foot concrete box culvert crossing Kitsap Way is undersized and a listed fish barrier. This project will replace this existing culvert with a new three-sided box culvert with a 17- foot clear span and 8-foot height. Bids were opened for the project on January 26, 2021 and 12 Bids were received. Active Construction, Inc., (ACI) is the lowest responsive, responsible bidder with their base bid totaling $1,725,725.00, including sales tax. Staff recommends award of the Kitsap Way (Ostrich Creek) Culvert Replacement Construction Contract to ACI., Inc. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Plan; 2) Bid Tabulation; 3) Contract FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement Project # 869 is funded by a Public Works Trust Fund Loan ($4,687,968) to the Stormwater Fund. The remainder of the loan amount is funding the culvert replacements at Price and Brentwood Roads which will be bid for construction in 2022. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract to ACI for the Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement Project, in the amount of $1,725,725.00, 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 3H City of Bremerton 233-1896-153 Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement I-41 December 2020 Contract Documents Contract CONTRACT (Page 1 of 4) THIS AGREEMENT is dated the day of in the year 20___, by and between the City of Bremerton (hereinafter called CITY) and (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). CITY and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. WORK. CONTRACTOR shall complete the WORK as specified or indicated in the CITY’s Contract Documents entitled Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement. ARTICLE 2. CONTRACT TIMES. The WORK shall obtain Physical Completion within 80 working days after the commencement date stated in the Notice to Proceed. Time is of the essence as to each and every deadline set forth in this agreement. This provision has been specifically negotiated. ARTICLE 3. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. CITY and the CONTRACTOR recognize that time is of the essence for this Agreement and that the CITY will suffer financial loss if the WORK is not completed within the time specified in Article 2 herein, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with Section 1-08.8 of the Standard Specifications which may be modified by the Special Provisions. They also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal proceeding the actual loss suffered by the CITY if the WORK is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, the CONTRACTOR shall pay the CITY liquidated damages in the amount of $1,650 per day after the date of Physical Completion for each phase. ARTICLE 4. CONTRACT PRICE. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the WORK in accordance with the Contract Documents in the amount set forth in the Bid Proposal, which shall include sales tax as provided in Section 1-07.2(2) of the Special Provisions. ARTICLE 5. PAYMENT PROCEDURES. CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Section 1-09.9 of the Standard Specifications which may be modified by the Special Provisions. Applications for Payment will be processed by ENGINEER as provided in the Special Provisions _____________ Contractor Initials City of Bremerton 233-1896-153 Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement I-42 December 2020 Contract Documents Contract CONTRACT (Page 2 of 4) ARTICLE 6. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning the WORK consist of this Contract and the following attachments to this Contract:  Notice Inviting Bids,  Bidders Checklist,  Bid Proposal including the Proposal Forms, Information Required of Bidder, Bid Bond, and all required certificates and affidavits,  Performance Bond,  Payment Bond,  Standard Specifications,  Amendments to the Standard Specifications,  Special Provisions,  Appendices  Contract Plans,  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 Section 1-04.4 of the Standard Specifications which may be modified by the Special Provisions. ARTICLE 7. INDEMNIFICATION. The CONTRACTOR and CITY 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. To the fullest extent permitted by Laws and Regulations, the CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, ENGINEER, their consultants, subconsultants, and the officers, directors, employees, and agents of each and any of them, against and from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, all claims and liability arising under, by reason of, related, or incidental to the Contract Documents or any performance of the WORK, but not from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY and/or the ENGINEER as further defined in the Contract Documents. The provisions of this section shall survive the termination of the contract. _____________ Contractor Initials City of Bremerton 233-1896-153 Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement I-43 December 2020 Contract Documents Contract CONTRACT (Page 3 of 4) ARTICLE 8. 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 CITY, 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 CITY 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. ARTICLE 9. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY All parties agree that the State of Washington shall be, and is hereby, named as an express third- party beneficiary of the contract, with full rights as such. ARTICLE 10. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Contract, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Contractor shall not discriminate in any employment practice on the basis of age (40+), sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation/gender identity, marital status, military status, or the presence of any physical, mental, or sensory disability. ARTICLE 11 ADA STATEMENT The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to both employment and admission to participation in the programs, services, and activities of the City of Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment will be provided. _____________ Contractor Initials City of Bremerton 233-1896-153 Kitsap Way Culvert Replacement I-44 December 2020 Contract Documents Contract CONTRACT (Page 4 of 4) CITY 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, CITY and CONTRACTOR have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY: City of Bremerton CONTRACTOR: By By [CORPORATE SEAL] Attest Attest Address for giving notices Address for giving notices License No. Approved as to Form: Agent for service of process: (Signature) (Title) AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Purchase of Equipment from PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. of Tacoma, WA for the Streets Division COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: PW&U Presenter: M. Hawkins-Bates Phone: (360) 473-5333 SUMMARY: This Agenda Bill is for approval of two quotes from the same vendor. The quotes alone do not need Council approval, but the two together total $ 29,089.43. This will be purchased using WA State Contract No. 05916. There are sufficient funds ($60,000) left in the project budget for the equipment. The first quote is for purchase of a new dump body. The City accepted delivery of two new Dump Trucks for the Street Department in December of 2020. Staff was hoping to be able to use the existing dump body from one of the trucks, but the equipment does not fit the new truck. The cost of the dump body is $12,960.51. The second quote is for two Stainless Steel Sanders at $16,128.92. ATTACHMENTS: Quote - PMI Truck Bodies, Inc FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Sufficient project funds in 510 STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the equipment purchase from PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. of Tacoma, WA in the amount of $29,089.43 which includes WA state sales tax. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3I QUOTE DATE 12/16/2020 WORK ORDER # 20197 NAME / ADDRESS City of Bremerton Accounts Payable 1600 Oyster Bay Road Bremerton, WA 98312 Ship To PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. (WA) PO NUMBER Chuck E TERMS Net 30 REP JEM SHIP VIA WC Signature: Total Subtotal Sales Tax (9.9%) 2219 112th Street E. Tacoma, WA 98445-3731 253-539-3339 / 253-539-3335 fax DISCLAIMERS: - SIGNED QUOTE NOT VALID WITHOUT CHASSIS BUILD SHEET (ASK SALES FOR REQUIREMENTS) - LEAD TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY - REVISIONS AFTER APPROVAL DATE ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES - PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE W/O NOTICE. - NO RETURNS OR CANCELLATIONS ON CUSTOM ORDERS, NON CUSTOM ORDERS SUBJECT TO 35% RESTOCKING FEE - CREDIT CARDS NOT ACCEPTED - HAND WRITTEN NOTES NOT ACCEPTED Date: DESCRIPTION QTY COST Total TRUCK: 2020 F450, 84" CAB TO AXLE, REGULAR CAB, DUAL REAR WHEEL, DIESEL BODY: STELLAR FLEX 84-10 CUSTOM RUGBY DU-11-3 2/3 YARD DUMP BODY, (84" CA) - 11’7” LONG X 96” WIDE X 12” SIDE HEIGHT X 18.5” TAILGATE HEIGHT - 10 GA CONSTRUCTION THROUGHOUT - FULLY BOXED DIRT-SHEDDING TOP RAIL - DOUBLE WALLED RIGID SIDES - 3" I-BEAM CROSSMEMBERS ON 16" SPACING - 2 WAY FULLY BOXED PERIMETER TAILGATE WITH TWO VERTICAL BRACES - EZ-LATCH TAILGATE - 6" VERTICAL SIDE BRACES - 1/4 CAB SHIELD WITH WINDOW - POWDER COATED SEMI-GLOSS BLACK - FLUSH MOUNTED LED CLEARANCE LIGHTS - PULL TARP SEMI-AUTOMATIC ROLL TARP SYSTEM AT BASE OF CAB SHIELD - STELLAR HOOK LIFT FRAME WITH WHEELS AND FEET - (4) SURFACE MOUNT 'D' RING (WELD ON), 2000# CAPACITY, INSTALLED IN 4 CORNERS OF BODY 1 11,793.00 11,793.00T Page 1 QUOTE DATE 12/16/2020 WORK ORDER # 20197 NAME / ADDRESS City of Bremerton Accounts Payable 1600 Oyster Bay Road Bremerton, WA 98312 Ship To PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. (WA) PO NUMBER Chuck E TERMS Net 30 REP JEM SHIP VIA WC Signature: Total Subtotal Sales Tax (9.9%) 2219 112th Street E. Tacoma, WA 98445-3731 253-539-3339 / 253-539-3335 fax DISCLAIMERS: - SIGNED QUOTE NOT VALID WITHOUT CHASSIS BUILD SHEET (ASK SALES FOR REQUIREMENTS) - LEAD TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY - REVISIONS AFTER APPROVAL DATE ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES - PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE W/O NOTICE. - NO RETURNS OR CANCELLATIONS ON CUSTOM ORDERS, NON CUSTOM ORDERS SUBJECT TO 35% RESTOCKING FEE - CREDIT CARDS NOT ACCEPTED - HAND WRITTEN NOTES NOT ACCEPTED Date: DESCRIPTION QTY COST Total ************************************************************************************* DISCLAIMERS: - CHANGES: EACH CHANGE AFTER QUOTE APPROVAL WILL CONSTITUTE A $500.00 CHANGE FEE IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THE CHANGE. NO CHANGES WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER PRODUCTION BEGINS. - DRAWINGS: BASE COST FOR DRAWINGS IS $500.00 AND CHARGED AT $150.00 PER HOUR. - PAINT: PMI TRUCK BODIES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE A PERFECT COLOR MATCH DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES IN FACTORY PAINTS, PROCEDURES AND CONTOUR DIFFERENCES. - TIMING: ESTIMATES NOT IN WRITING FROM AUTHORIZED PMI PERSONNEL WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ************************************************************************************* 0.00T Page 2 $12,960.51 $11,793.00 $1,167.51 QUOTE DATE 12/16/2020 WORK ORDER # 20201 NAME / ADDRESS City of Bremerton Accounts Payable 1600 Oyster Bay Road Bremerton, WA 98312 Ship To PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. (WA) PO NUMBER Chuck E TERMS Net 30 REP JEM SHIP VIA WC Signature: Total Subtotal Sales Tax (9.9%) 2219 112th Street E. Tacoma, WA 98445-3731 253-539-3339 / 253-539-3335 fax DISCLAIMERS: - SIGNED QUOTE NOT VALID WITHOUT CHASSIS BUILD SHEET (ASK SALES FOR REQUIREMENTS) - LEAD TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY - REVISIONS AFTER APPROVAL DATE ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES - PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE W/O NOTICE. - NO RETURNS OR CANCELLATIONS ON CUSTOM ORDERS, NON CUSTOM ORDERS SUBJECT TO 35% RESTOCKING FEE - CREDIT CARDS NOT ACCEPTED - HAND WRITTEN NOTES NOT ACCEPTED Date: DESCRIPTION QTY COST Total TRUCK: 2020 F450, 84" CAB TO AXLE, REGULAR CAB, DUAL REAR WHEEL, DIESEL BODY: STELLAR FLEX 84-10 SALTDOGG 2.75 CU YD STAINLESS STEEL GAS CONVEYOR CHAIN SPREADER (PN: 1400460SS, 1497505SS &1496505) - 9' LONG - 10.5 HP GAS ENGINE - CONVEYER CHAIN FEED - EXTENDED STAINLESS STEEL CHUTE - 4 PIECE TIE DOWN KIT - SHIP LOOSE, CUSTOMER TO INSTALL 2 7,338.00 14,676.00T ************************************************************************************* DISCLAIMERS: - CHANGES: EACH CHANGE AFTER QUOTE APPROVAL WILL CONSTITUTE A $500.00 CHANGE FEE IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THE CHANGE. NO CHANGES WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER PRODUCTION BEGINS. - DRAWINGS: BASE COST FOR DRAWINGS IS $500.00 AND CHARGED AT $150.00 PER HOUR. - PAINT: PMI TRUCK BODIES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE A PERFECT COLOR MATCH DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES IN FACTORY PAINTS, PROCEDURES AND CONTOUR DIFFERENCES. - TIMING: ESTIMATES NOT IN WRITING FROM AUTHORIZED PMI PERSONNEL WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ************************************************************************************* 0.00T $16,128.92 $14,676.00 $1,452.92 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Management Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Government Center Owners Association COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Michael Riley Phone: (360) 473-5303 SUMMARY: Currently Housing Kitsap is the managing agent for the Bremerton Government Center Owners Association (BGC-OA). Housing Kitsap has given official notice to no longer provide those services effective February 28, 2021. Per the By-laws, the BGC-OA is required to be managed by an existing occupant of the building. In discussions with the Board and other members, it was requested the City of Bremerton assume the function of the managing agent. ATTACHMENTS: NDGC Management Agreement; Temporary Contract – JO; Temporary Contract BW FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Approximately $75,000 in revenue per year. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Government Center Owners Association; 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 3J 1 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BREMERTON GOVERNMENT CENTER THIS AGREEMENT relating to the management of Bremerton Government Center, a Condominium (the “Condominium”), is made as of this ____ day of _____________________, ______, by and between BREMERTON GOVERNMENT CENTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION (the “Association”) and CITY OF BREMERTON (the “Managing Agent”) upon the terms hereinafter set forth. Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used herein have the same meaning provided in the Condominium Declaration for Bremerton Government Center, a Condominium, recorded under A. DUTIES OF THE ASSOCIATION The Association agrees: 1. To retain the Managing Agent to perform the management services set forth herein for the term of this Agreement. 2. To furnish the Managing Agent with: a. a complete list of Owners, lessees, and other users, to include addresses, primary contacts, telephone numbers, and other information reasonably necessary for communication and billing purposes, supplemented and updated as Units are sold or leased; b. a set of the building plans and specifications used for construction of the Condominium; and c. a current copy of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, and rules and regulations and any amendments thereto. d. a complete set of all financial, maintenance, service contracts, and all other records pertaining to the City of Bremerton’s management of the Condominium. 3. To pay to the Managing Agent the Management Fee as approved by the Board in connection with adoption of the annual budget of the Association and agreed to by the Managing Agent on the first day of each month in advance, as a fee for management and other services rendered hereunder, except as hereinafter otherwise specifically provided. The Management Fee covers normal and usual administrative expenses of the Managing Agent as specified under B below ("Basic Services of the Managing Agent"). The Association shall pay unusual expenses of the Managing Agent including Capital Improvements or other services required the Board of Directors of the Association (the "Board"), as specified under C below ("Additional Services of the Managing Agent"). 4. To provide the Managing Agent with evidence of authority by way of certified resolutions or otherwise and such specific directions as the Managing Agent may reasonably require to take actions in the management of the Bremerton Government Center. 2 5. To hold the Managing Agent harmless and free from all liability in the event of bankruptcy, receivership, insolvency, or failure of a depository for the Association's funds, provided the depository is insured by a Federal agency to the full extent of the deposited funds or otherwise specifically designated by the Board. 6. To defend, indemnify, and hold the Managing Agent harmless from all liability whatsoever arising in connection with its management of the Condominium, except in cases of the Managing Agent’s negligence or willful misconduct, and to carry, at its own expense, necessary public liability adequate to protect the Managing Agent to the same extent it protects the Association, and on request provide the Managing Agent with evidence that such insurance is in force and effect and that the Managing Agent is named as an additional insured. 7. To cooperate reasonably with the Managing Agent to the extent required for the Managing Agent to perform expeditiously, efficiently, and economically the management services required under this Agreement. 8. To designate one member as the Board's representative to deal with the Managing Agent on any matter relating to management of the Association. In the absence of any other designation, the President of the Board will be deemed to have this authority. B. BASIC SERVICES OF THE MANAGING AGENT The Managing Agent shall provide the following Basic Services for the Association: 1. Provide advice to the Association relating to staffing requirements, hire and discharge personnel, negotiate service contracts, and purchase repair and maintenance materials and equipment to be used in the ordinary course of the operation and maintenance of the Condominium. All personnel performing services for the Association primarily at the Condominium will be employed by the Managing Agent or hired as independent contractors. These personnel initially consist of the Building Superintendent, and half-time Maintenance worker currently employed by Housing Kitsap. These individuals will be offered 12-month temporary employment by the Managing Agent in their current roles, and upon the end of this term the positions will be advertised for open recruitment. It is understood that employees of the Kitsap County Health District will be providing janitorial services with respect to the common areas on the third and fourth floors of the building. 2. Prepare an annual operating budget and present it to the Board within thirty (30) days prior to the end of the fiscal accounting year, itemizing anticipated expenses and disbursements for the new fiscal year in accordance with the Declaration. 3. Prepare and distribute monthly and year-to-date statements of revenues and expenditures prepared on an accrual basis showing: assessments and other cash receipts collected; amount and purpose of each disbursement as compared with budgeted expenses by budget; net cash gain or loss, cash-on-hand, and reserve accounts; names of any Owners delinquent in payment of their assessments and the amount of each delinquency. Collect assessments and direct charges due from Owners or other payments owing to the Association. The Managing Agent may take such action in the name of the Association by way of legal process or otherwise as required for the collection of delinquent monthly assessments and direct charges. The Association shall reimburse the Managing Agent for all legal costs incurred for collection. 3 4. Write checks on behalf of the Association to pay utility fees; service contracts; material, supply and equipment purchases; subscriptions; insurance payments and all other required expenditures included in the Annual Budget as approved by the Board. Expenditure Authority for the Managing Agent shall generally comply with City of Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.76 “Procurement and Disposal Code”, except that all requirements for Mayor or City Council approval or authorization shall require approval of the Board. It is specifically noted that this provision allows the Managing Agent to make purchases and execute contracts for activities included in the approved Annual Budget with a value up to $25,000 without additional approval of the Board. 5. Assist in and permit the inspection and auditing of books and records by authorized agents of the Association during normal business hours with prior notice given. 6. Timely prepare reports and forms the Association is required to submit by law with the exception of income tax returns. 7. Arrange for investment of Association funds, separate and apart from the Managing Agent's own funds, in trust accounts, securities, or other investments as directed by or mutually agreed upon by the Association and the Managing Agent; receipts and disbursements _to be promptly reported to the Association. 8. Secure and maintain appropriate insurance coverages for fire and extended coverage, general liability, fidelity bonds, statutory, and other approved forms of insurance coverages as required by the Declaration or authorized by the Board. 9. Process insurance claims made under the Association's insurance policies. 10. Maintain comprehensive financial records of the Association's receipts and disbursements. 11. Maintain a list of current Owners and lessees. 12. Attend all meetings of the members of the Association and the Board, to the extent available, and ensure the Board is informed on all current building issues and projects. 13. Addendum No. 1 to this Agreement entitled "HIPAA Business Associate Addendum" has been executed between the Managing Agent and the Kitsap County Health District to ensure the privacy and security of protected health information in the Health District's office Units, as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended. C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE MANAGING AGENT: The following Additional Services are not of a routine nature, shall be provided only if authorized by the Board either by approval in the Annual Budget, or through separate Board action, and are not within the Management Fee for Basic Services provided in Section B above. 4 The Managing Agent shall manage and inspect improvement, rehabilitation, and construction projects as included in the Annual Budget or separately approved by the Board as Capital Expenditures with similar staffing and the same standard-of-care it uses in delivering similar projects for the City of Bremerton. All costs incurred by the Managing Agent shall be reimbursed at cost. 1. Insurance claims administration. Processing insurance claims in excess of $5,000 between members and insurer or for the Association are charged at the cost of $75.00 per hour. 2. Participation in legal actions. Should the Association become involved in any legal action, including arbitration or mediation, the time of the Managing Agent to answer questions, retrieve documents, compile information, attend meetings or legal proceedings shall be charged at actual cost; provided that such reimbursement shall not apply to the extent the legal action is caused by the intentional misconduct or negligence of the Managing Agent or its agents or contractors. D. COSTS CHARGED AGAINST ASSOCIATION FUNDS 1. All acts performed by the Managing Agent in accordance with the above provisions shall be for the benefit of the Association and its members, and all obligations and expenses reasonably incurred by the Managing Agent that exceed the value of the Management Fee (including but not limited to the cost of hiring contractors, accountants, attorneys, and other personnel; negotiating, managing and executing service contracts; updating Reserve Studies; developing and managing Capital Improvement Plans; and the cost of copying, postage, long distance telephone, deliveries, etc.) shall be reimbursed by the Association at cost. 2. The Managing Agent shall not be required to perform any act or duty hereunder involving the expenditure of money unless the Managing Agent shall have in its possession sufficient Association funds available therefor. If at any time such funds are not suffi cient to pay charges incident to this Agreement, the Managing Agent may advance such sums as it deems necessary, and the Association shall, upon notice, pay to the Managing Agent the sums necessary to cover such deficit or such advances together with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from and after ten (10) days from date of payment. E. STANDARD OF CARE OF MANAGING AGENT The Managing Agent is a municipality with experience managing a variety of properties. The Managing Agent shall use its best efforts to perform the services required of it under this Agreement in a professional manner and in accordance with usual and customary, professional and industry standard practices. 5 F. INDEMNIFICATION Each party to this Agreement agrees to defend and indemnify the other party and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents against all claims, losses, damages, suits and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, to the extent they arise out of, or result from, the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnitor or its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees and agents in the performance of this Agreement. The indemnitor' s duty to defend and indemnify extends to claims by the elected or appointed officials, officers, employees and agents of the indemnitor or of any contractor or subcontractor of indemnitor. The indemnitor waives its immunity under Title 51 (Industrial Insurance) of the Revised Code of Washington solely for the purposes of this provision. The provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. G. INSURANCE Each party shall maintain insurance coverages in amounts and type, including commercial general liability, that are required under the Declaration or are appropriate in light of its obligations under this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the Managing Agent shall maintain fidelity insurance in accordance with Section 19.6 of the Declaration. H. TERM AND TERMINATION The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date of commencement of assessments by the Association, shall continue for an initial term of one year; and shall continue thereafter for annual terms unless terminated at the end of any term as provided herein. This Agreement may be terminated, without cause, at the end of the initial term or the end of any subsequent term by the Board of the Association upon the giving of written notice sixty (60) days prior to the termination date, and by the Managing Agent upon the giving of written notice to the Board of the Association sixty (60) days prior to the termination date. If the Managing Agent fails to perform any material obligation under this Agreement and such failure is not cured within 30 days after written notice by the Association or such longer period of time as may be reasonable under the circumstances, the Association may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to the Managing Agent and shall have all rights and remedies available to it under general law. In such event, the Managing Agent shall extend its full cooperation during any transition period to a new managing agent, which obligation shall survive termination of this Agreement. I. MISCELLANEOUS 1. The Managing Agent assumes no liability whatsoever for any acts or omissions of the Board of the Association, or any previous boards, Owners, or agents of the Association. 6 agent. 2. The relationship of the parties to this Agreement shall be that of principal and 3. Except with respect to payment of fees due and owing the Managing Agent, performance by either the Association or the Managing Agent is excused if and so long as prevented by governmental restrictions, war, insurrection or civil commotion, labor disputes, or other causes beyond the control of the nonperforming party. 4. The Managing Agent agrees not to collect for its own account or benefit any undisclosed fees, rebates, or discounts. 5. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the contracting parties, and no variance or modification thereof shall be valid and enforceable, except by an executed and approved agreement in writing. 6. Waiver by either party hereto of a default or breach of any prov1S1on hereunder shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of such provision or waiver of the provision itself. 7. Notice by one party to the other shall be in writing and must be delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail. 8. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and constitute a binding obligation upon the Association and the Managing Agent, and their respective heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns. 9. The parties understand and agree that the Managing Agent, during the entire term of this Agreement, may pursue and engage in such business and nonbusiness activities for its own account and not on behalf of the Association, as the Managing Agent may deem necessary or desirable, regardless of whether or not such activity relates to the Condominium, and may receive for its own accounts the income, profits, and compensation resulting from such activity, provided that during the term of this Agreement, the Managing Agent shall not pursue or engage in any activity that would conflict with or prevent performance of the Managing Agent's duties provided for hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Association acknowledges that the Managing Agent: (a) was the Declarant of the Condominium, (b) may own one or more Units in the Condominium, and (c) may have a person employed by or affiliated with the Managing Agent as a member of the Board. If Managing Agent becomes aware of any actual conflict of interest arising between the Managing Agent's duties under this Agreement and its other capacities or activities relating to the Condominium, the Managing Agent shall promptly bring such conflict to the attention of the Board for discussion and resolution. 10. The Managing Agent, its officers and employees shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations in the performance of their duties under this Agreement. 7 11. Except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the Managing Agent in the performance of its duties under this Agreement shall use only its bona fide employees and shall not delegate or subcontract any of its duties to any other part y without the approval of the Board, which approval may not be unreasonably withheld. 12. In performing its duties under this Agreement, the Managing Agent, its officers and employees shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, veteran status, disability or any other basis prohibited at law. 13. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any legal proceeding arising under it shall be maintained only in a court of competent jurisdiction in Kitsap County, Washington. Schedule C BREMERTON GOVERNMENT CENTER A CONDOMINIUM Limited Common Elements 1. The Limited Common Elements allocated to the Office Units jointly (the Office Limited Common Elements) are as follows: 1.1 The lobbies, corridors and stairways on the Office Levels of the Building. 1.2 The elevators in the Building. 1.3 The grounds, walkways, driveways and parking areas of the Condominium, except the walkway along the western side of the Building and the Limited Common Element driveway, trash collection area and parking areas allocated to the Garage Unit. 1.4 Parking level PI and the loading dock. 1.5 Any other areas shown as Office Limited Common Element (OLCE) on the Survey Map and Plans. 2. The Limited Common Elements allocated to the Garage Unit are the driveway, trash collection area and parking spaces on the west side of the Building, as shown on the Survey Map and Plans. 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ASSOCIATION: BREMERTON GOVERNMENT CENTE OWNERS AS CIATION By____________________________ Its President MANAGING AGENT: CITY OF BREMERTON By __________________________________ Its MAYOR Thomas Knuckey, Director of Public Works & Utilities 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98310 Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us 360-473-2376 March 01, 2021 John Owensby RE: Letter of Engagement Dear John: It is with great pleasure that I confirm your temporary appointment to the position of Temporary Technical Lead. This letter will serve to confirm your employment with the City of Bremerton as follows: POSITION: Temporary Technical Lead DEPARTMENT: Public Works & Utilities HIRE DATE: March 01, 2021 RATE OF PAY: SUPERVISOR: $30.95 Hourly – Step 34 (Part- Time/Temporary/Seasonal Pay Schedule) Chris Mottner, Facilities/Inventory Supervisor BENEFITS: Medical Insurance Employee pays 25% of the premium and employer pays 75%. – Employee Assistance Program Included Dental Insurance Employer pays 100% of employee only coverage. Vision Employer pays 100% of employee only coverage Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) This position is eligible for enrollment in PERS Public Works & Utilities Public Works and Utilities LEAVE BENEFITS: HOLIDAYS: JURY DUTY: LEGAL & REGULATORY: Vacation – Accrues 240 Hours Annually Sick Leave – Accrues 96 Hours Annually Bereavement Leave - Three (3) days of bereavement leave are allowed for attending funerals in the State of Washington and five (5) days for attending out of State funerals upon the death of a member of the immediate family. The first three (3) days of time off for bereavement leave will be compensated at the employee’s current salary. The additional two (2) days of time off for bereavement leave shall be charged against the employee’s vacation, floating holiday, sick leave, or compensatory time leave balance at the option of the employee. Immediate family is defined as spouse, State registered domestic partner, child, stepchild, mother, father, step-parents, mother/father in-law, brother, sister, brother/sister in-law, grandparents and grandchildren of both an employee and his or her spouse. All leave must be accrued prior to use. Employee shall receive a full day of time off without loss of compensation for each Holiday observed on the day it is observed by the City and one additional holiday. Holidays observed by the City are:  New Year’s Day  Martin Luther King’s Birthday  President’s Day  Memorial Day  Independence Day  Labor Day  Veteran’s Day  Thanksgiving Day  Day after Thanksgiving  Christmas Leave of absence with pay for the purpose of reporting to jury duty or if subpoenaed as a witness for the City is provided. Any juror or witness fees received by a person for the performance of such duties shall be assigned to the City. Legal and Regulatory Employment Conditions The position is filled by appointment by the Department Head. Removal is by action of the Department Head in conformance with City policies. The classification is non-exempt under the laws of fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime provisions. The classification is not included in the City's Civil Service System. This temporary classification is non-represented and is an “at will” position. Please sign indicating your acceptance of our offer of temporary employment as outlined above and return to Debbie Klinefelter in our Human Resources Office at 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337. Sincerely, Thomas Knuckey Director of Public Works & Utilities cc: Charlotte Nelson, Human Resources Manager -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACCEPTANCE OF JOB OFFER: I, John Owensby, hereby accept the appointment to position of temporary Technical, under the terms and conditions as set forth in this Letter of Engagement. SIGNATURE: ______________________________ __________________ John Owensby Date Thomas Knuckey, Director of Public Works & Utilities 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98310 Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us 360-473-2376 March 01, 2021 Brian Wellborn RE: Letter of Engagement Dear Brian, It is with great pleasure that I confirm your temporary appointment to the position of Temporary Laborer III. This letter will serve to confirm your employment with the City of Bremerton as follows: Position: Temporary Laborer III Department: Public Works & Utilities Effective Date: March 01, 2021 Rate of Pay: $19.83 Hourly - Step 16 of the Part- Time/Temp/Seasonal Pay Schedule Appointment/Removal: Director of Public Works & Utilities Supervisor: Chris Mottner, Facilities/Inventory Supervisor Benefits: Washington State Paid Sick Leave Legal and Regulatory Employment Conditions The position is filled by appointment by the Department Head. Removal is by action of the Department Head in conformance with City policies.  The classification is non-exempt under the laws of fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime provisions.  The classification is not included in the City's Civil Service System.  This temporary classification is non-represented and is an “at will” position. Public Works & Utilities Public Works and Utilities Please sign indicating your acceptance of our offer of temporary employment as outlined above and return to Debbie Klinefelter in our Human Resources Office at 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337. Sincerely, Thomas Knuckey Director of Public Works & Utilities cc: Charlotte Nelson, Human Resources Manager -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACCEPTANCE OF JOB OFFER: I, Brian Wellborn, hereby accept the appointment to position of temporary Laborer III, under the terms and conditions as set forth in this Letter of Engagement. SIGNATURE: ______________________________ __________________ Brian Wellborn Date AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance amending Section 20.46.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units per Single Family Lot The Public Hearing is to receive Public Comment only; there will be no Council action tonight… Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: DCD Presenter: Allison Satter Phone: 360.473.5845 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Title 20 for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to allow two ADUs per single-family home lot. The Council already made amendments to the ADU code in December 2020 via Ordinance 5410 to incorporate most of the Planning Commission recommendations. However, the Council requested that one item, to allow two ADUs per single-family lot, be discussed at a future date. At this public hearing, the Council will receive comments, but no action will be taken on this ordinance. The Council is requesting comments on all the following:  Planning Commission’s Recommendation to allow 2 ADU per single-family lot.  Potential Code Revision #1 – Place limitations about where a second ADU can be established (i.e. not allow them citywide).  Potential Code Revision #2 – Allow second ADU only if there is owner occupancy on site.  Potential Code Revision #3 – Allow second ADU only if affordability requirements are met.  Potential Code Revision #4 – Allow second ADU without additional parking requirements.  Potential Code Revision #5 – Prohibit all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals. A public hearing for this item for the Council to make a decision on the proposed Ordinance will be held tentatively on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A – Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions Attachment 1 – Staff Memo Attachment 2 – Public comments received (include discussions from December’s Public Hearing for Ordinance 5410) Attachment 3 – February 10 Study Session Power Point Presentation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing MOTION OPTIONS: No motion. City Council is seeking public comments; and no action will be taken on this Ordinance on February 17. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 4A 1 Title 20 BMC Updates ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units. WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need for modification has been identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton (“City”) has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (“BMC”), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, The State Growth Management Act, and other applicable regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton (and the region) are experiencing a housing shortage and allowing a second Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) would increase the opportunity for more housing types in the City; and WHEREAS, due to their smaller size, an ADU can provide a more affordable housing option in single-family zones; and WHEREAS, increasing housing options, such as ADUs, throughout the City will give more families access to existing schools, parks, and other public amenities; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, and October 2, 2020 a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for the proposed action and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020, and October 2, 2020 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2020, 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 2 Title 20 BMC Updates WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the amendments for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2020, the City Council passed the majority of the Planning Commission recommendations through Ordinance 5410, however the Council requested that the Commission’s recommendation of two ADUs per site come back at a later date; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2021, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing on February 17, 2021 by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered all testimony prior to their decision; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 3. Chapter 20.46 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Special Development Standards” is hereby amended by amending Section 20.46.010 to read as follows: 20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be permitted anywhere a new or existing single- family dwelling unit (hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are exempt from the density requirements of the underlying zone and shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage or BMC 20.44.060, accessory structures setbacks for detached ADUs. (b) An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit. (c) Only one (1) Two (2) ADUs may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1) single-family dwelling unit and one (1) a maximum of two (2) ADUs. (d) Manufactured homes may be allowed as an accessory dwelling unit provided it complies with the design criteria of ADUs and must comply with BMC 20.46.040, manufactured home provisions, excluding BMC 20.46.040(a)(2) and (6) regarding size and roof pitch. (e) The ADU shall be limited to one thousand (1,000) square feet or not more than sixty (60) percent of the principal unit’s total habitable floor area, whichever is greater, with the following exception: 3 Title 20 BMC Updates (1) To encourage the compact infill development and use of existing single- family homes, if a residence that was constructed or remodeled prior to December 31, 2020, is proposed to be divided into a principal unit and an ADU, the Director may allow equal square footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of the existing residence. This does not apply to detached ADUs. (f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood. (g) The second accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. If only one ADU is onsite, it is not required to provide additional off-street parking space. The site must comply with BMC 20.48, specifically that the required parking spaces for the principal unit shall be provided and that all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. (h) When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may allow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code. (i) An ADU shall be required to be served by City water and sewer or an approved septic system. (j) The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must abide by the following: (1) International Property Maintenance Code Chapter 3, Section 302, concerning exterior property areas, as adopted at BMC 17.04.020(f), except those not adopted as enumerated in BMC 17.04.110, or as hereby amended; and (2) All applicable provisions in BMC Title 6 regarding health and sanitation including maintaining nuisance vegetation, proper garbage and refuse containment, and maintaining the buildings to not qualify as an unfit dwelling, building, structure and/or premises. (k) Conversion of Existing Detached Structures. To encourage the compact infill development of existing structures throughout the City, a detached ADU that does not comply with certain development standards of this chapter may be permitted provided the requirements of this section are met. The following shall apply to all development seeking to utilize this provision: (1) The structure must have been constructed prior to December 31, 2020. The structure must either have received a City or County permit, not needed a permit at the time of construction, or be recognized as a structure per the Kitsap County Assessor records. (2) The structure must meet, either currently or through permitted remodeling, the requirements of the building (BMC Title 17) and fire (BMC Title 18) code for habitable structures. (3) The conversion of an existing structure to an ADU, with no expansions, may be exempt from: (i) Compliance with the development standards for setbacks, height, and lot coverage of the underlying zone. (ii) Compliance with the ADU provisions of this section related to size and design, except as provided at subsection (k)(4) of this section. 4 Title 20 BMC Updates (4) An existing structure may be enlarged or extended, provided the following provisions are met: (i) The enlargements do not violate underlying zone requirements. Structures that do not conform to the setback requirements may expand up to twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area, and to the building line, provided these enlargements do not further violate setback requirements. (ii) The enlargements do not cause the entire structure to exceed the ADU size requirements of subsection (e) of this section. (iii) Any altered or new facades shall have siding and roofing which in color, material, and appearance match or complement the predominant materials of the existing structure. (5) A conversion of the structure to an ADU will not be approved if it conflicts with the City’s plans, Capital Improvement Plan or other capital projects related to nearby expansion of utilities or infrastructure including the need for additional right-of-way. SECTION 4. 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 5. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021. _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021. _________________________________ GREGORY WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney 5 Title 20 BMC Updates PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. ORDINANCE NO. ____________ Coversheet for Planning Commission’s Finding & Conclusions for ADUs: Following this document is the City of Bremerton Planning Commission’s Finding and Conclusions for their public process related to the Zoning Code Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The City Council has adopted a portion of the Zoning Code Amendments related to ADUs as Planning Commission recommended on December 16, 2020 via Ordinance 5410. Those amendments that were adopted and are part of Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.46.010 are the following: • Increasing the ADU minimum size requirements, • Removing the parking requirement for ADU, • Removing Owner-Occupancy requirement, • Changing the Design Standards, and • Adding Standards for nonconforming detached structures to become ADUs. At the December 16, 2020 Public Hearing, the Council requested that one Planning Commission recommendation be considered at a future date: • Increasing the maximum number of ADUs per lot from one (1) to two (2). Additional Information: Though this Planning Commission’s Finding and Conclusion is the record of the ADU public process including the official Workshop and Public Hearing, the ADU discussions has been discussed numerous times at the Commission’s meeting. The Planning Commission meetings were ADUs were discussed are related to the City’s Infill Toolkit discussion. The following are other times that ADUs were discussed at Planning Commission (when the meeting was not specifically about ADUs): • March 19, 2018 • July 15, 2019 • October 21, 2019 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Exhibit A FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units. I.FINDINGS OF FACT 1.Project Description: The proposed amendment includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, Accessory Dwelling Units, as follows: A.Increasing the ADU minimum size. B.Increasing the maximum number of ADUs per lot from one (1) to two (2). B.Removing parking requirements for the first ADU. C.Removing owner occupancy and ownership requirements. D.Changing the design standards. E.Adding standards for nonconforming detached structures to become ADUs. 2.Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: May 18, 2020 2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: June 1, 2020 AND October 2, 2020 2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 29, 2020 and October 2 2020 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: October 2, 2020 2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 19, 2020 3.Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 At the workshop held on March 19, 2018, two public comments were received: 3.1.01 A. Marcus expressed support. 3.1.02 Russ Shiplet, representing the Kitsap Building Association, expressed support. 3.2 Written comments are summarized below: 3.2.01 Comment 01: R. Runyon submitted a potential code amendment. 3.2.02 Comment 02: L. King is supportive of ADU amendments. 3.3 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 19, 2020, the following people testified: R. Runyon R. Shiplet for the Kitsap Building Association S. Plahn J. Vogt 4.SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on May 29, 2020, to date no comments or appeals have been filed. A subsequent DNS was issued on October 2, 2020 as additional code revisions were requested by the public for the City to consider. 5.Consistency: Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. Exhibit A (1) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: The amendment continues to uphold the objectives, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan such as: o Policy LU1(B): Coordinate Bremerton’s growth consistent with the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040, and state requirements. o Policy LU4(C): Provide land use regulations that give opportunities for the community to have fair access to livelihood, education, and resources. o Policy LU4(D): On an annual basis review and provide amendments, if necessary, to the goals and policies and the Land Use Map to address changing circumstances and/or emergencies. o Housing Vision: To encourage the growth of Bremerton by strategically locating a wide variety of housing types throughout the City in a way that protects the environment and fosters community health. o Housing Goal H2: Encourage the development of a variety of new housing options and densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton’s residents. o Policy H2(C): Supporting infill development and increased densities and the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure efficient and cost-effective utilization of existing public utilities. o Housing Goal H3: Support access to quality and affordable housing for all Bremerton residents. o Policy H3(A): Provide opportunities for the production of new housing for all incomes, ages, and family types through infill by stimulating growth of non- traditional housing types such as townhomes, carriage units, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes in locations where they will seamlessly infill into the fabric of the existing neighborhoods. o Policy H3(E): Eliminate unnecessary regulatory impediments to the development of affordable housing. o Goal H4: Implement and coordinate strategies that promote public and private efforts to facilitate improvements to the housing stock. o Policy H4(F): Promote increased housing density to provide a broader customer base for more affordable public services including utilities. (2) It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis: The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. Respectfully submitted by: _____________________________________________ _________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Director of Community Development Nick Wofford, Planning Commission Chair Exhibit A Attachment 1 To: City Council From: Allison Satter, Planning Manager Date: Updated – February 12, 2021 Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) SUMMARY City Council is holding a Public Hearing to receive comments the Zoning Code amendments to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per single-family lot, specifically Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.46.010. At this public hearing, the Council will not be making a decision, as they wish to gather feedback on the proposal at this time (for a decision at a future public hearing). In addition to considering the Planning Commission’s recommendation to allow two ADUs per single-family lots, the Council is also considering the following items . Council is seeking comments on draft Ordinance and the following potential revisions to the draft ADU code: • Revision 1: Place limitations about where a second ADU can be established (i.e. not allow them citywide). • Revision 2: Allow second ADU only if there is owner occupancy on site. • Revision 3: Allow second ADU only if there are affordability requirements met. • Revision 4: Allow the second ADU without additional parking requirements . • Revision 5: Prohibit all ADUs from being used as short -term rentals. This is the 2nd Council Public Hearing for the changes to the ADU code as recommended by Planning Commission1. The Zoning Code amendments made in the 1st Public Hearing (Ordinance 5410) will not be change at this meeting2. 1 Zoning Code Amendments to the ADU regulations was passed on December 16, 2020 via Ordinance 5410. Changes included removing owner-occupancy requirement, eliminating the one-additional off-street parking space, modifying the maximum size requirement, reduci ng the design criteria, and allowing some nonconforming structures to be converted to an ADU. 2 Record from Ordinance 5410 is not repeated in this packet, but click here to access City Council's record for the adoption of Ordinance 5410 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 2 Planning Commission’s Recommendation Planning Commission unanimously recommended the ADU amendments for BMC 20.46.010 at a Public Hearing held on October 19, 2020. At the Planning Commission’s public hearing, each topic of proposed changes to the ADU code was discussed independently prior to the vote. The Commission’s recommendation for two ADUs in the attached ordinance is described in this memo. Please note that this Memo shows proposed amendments in legislative markup with changes being red, and additions being underlined and deletions being strike-through. (c) Only one (1) two (2) ADUs may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1) single-family dwelling unit and one (1) a maximum of two (2) ADUs. The amended code as recommended by the Planning Commission raises this limit to two (2) ADUs, either two attached, two detached, or one attached and one detached. The Planning Commission’s decision was based on public comment that was supportive of multiple ADUs on a parcel, as well as the example of neighboring cities that have introduced similar ADU standards. The City of Seattle currently allows up to two ADUs per lot, as does Kirkland and Burien. Looking further, the State of California now permits up to two ADUs statewide on all family zoned for low density residential uses. A Councilmember also expressed concerns about allowing two attached units or two detached units on a single-family home lot. Although the City’s updated ADU code may allow two, as a practical matter the City’s Code (Fire and Zoning) will make this difficult, or impossible, as follows: • If two ADUs are attached to a Single-family home, such as a basement and upper floor conversion to units, the Single-family home will have to install an automatic sprinkler system. For existing houses, this is an expensive request that requires significant work. One attached ADU to a single-family home does not require the sprinkler system to be installed (this becomes a requirement at two attached units). • Small lots will not be able to locate two detached ADUs as the re is existing development standards that will limit this. Such as not complying with maximum lot coverage allowed which is 60% (40% of their site needs to yard) and meeting the required setbacks. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 3 Potential Code Revision #1 – Limit where second ADU can be established Council would like to receive comments on if the following should become part of the proposal: Place limitations about where a second ADU can be established City Council has requested a potential revision to the Draft Ordinance to add a provision to Planning Commission recommendation to allow a second ADU where the City has existing or planned denser population such as the City centers or the City’s commercial or institutional (Olympic College) zones. A potential revision could be: A second ADU located onsite is allowed if located within 500 feet of a commercial or instutional district or mixed-use Center. This code regulation would be consistent with other City regulations, including the provision which allows more housing types (duplexes and triplexes) in the Low Density Residentia l zone if the housing types meeting the underlying density (code revision in 2018 via Ordinance 5364). Here is a zoning map showing 500’ from City Centers, commercial zones and institutional zone that if this provision passed would be area that allowed t wo ADUs. Zoning Map #1 – with 500’ buffer shown in green dash marks from commercial, institutional and Center zones. This includes most of East Bremerton. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 4 Zoning Map #2 – with 500’ buffer shown in green dash marks from commercial, institutional and Center zones. This includes Manette, Olympic College, Downtown, and part of Charleston. *Please note this map has a minor error that will be fixed prior to the Public Hearing: the area near Naval Base Kitsap/Gregory Way should be shown within the 500’ buffer. Zoning Map #3 – with 500’ buffer shown in green dash marks from commercial, institutional and Center zones. This includes much of West Bremerton (not including downtown or Olympic College). *Please note this map has a minor error that will be fixed prior to the Public Hearing: the area near Naval Base Kitsap/Gregory Way should be shown within the 500’ buffer. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 5 Potential Code Revision #2 – Require Owner Occupancy if Two ADUs onsite Council would like to receive comments on if the following should become part of the proposal: Revision 2: Allow second ADU only if there is owner occupancy on site. In December 2020, the Council removed the requirement that the owner must live onsite if there is an ADU. However, the Council is considering a potential amendment to bring back this requirement if two ADUs are allowed onsite. A potential revision could be: A second ADU located onsite is allowed only if the property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must occupy either the principal unit or an ADU as their permanent residence for all twelve (12) months of the year. An ADU shall have a deed restriction recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor to indicate the presence of the ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintain ing the unit as described above. There is a trend for ADU code revisions to remove the owner occupancy requirements as they are hard to enforce and this is a big impediment to ADUs. Looking at future State initiatives, it is encouraging Cities to remove owner occupancy requirements. For the City to add this back to the code may make the City ineligible for future incentive programs for ADU development. If this provision was adopted, Staff would be monitoring the State initiatives and may bring this item back up to Council if this prohibits the City from participating in programs that help housing in Bremerton. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 6 Potential Code Revision #3 – Require 2nd ADU to be rented as Affordable Council would like to receive comments on if the following should become part of the proposal: Revision 3: Allow second ADU only if there are affordability requirements met. Staff researched the State Law provisions that set the requirements for programs (not MFTE) that have affordability requirements. We reviewed WAC 365-196-870 and RCW 36.70A.540. These sections of the State regulations indicate that if an affordab ility component is included in local codes then: • The rent cap for an eligible household shall be less than 30% of the household’s income. • The “income limits” used by the local regulations must be less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). For and for Bremerton this would be based on the Bremerton-Silverdale MSA. Here’s the data for 2020: 2020 Bremerton- Silverdale MSA Median Family Income 2020 Income Limit Category Person in Family 1 2 3 4 $91,700 Low (80%) Income Limit $51,350 $58,700 $66,050 $73,350 As shown in the table above, one person in an ADU shall not make more than $51,350 to be an income-eligible household. Their rent/utility cost should not be more than $1,284 per month. • The State requires that the “period of affordability” for these programs be established at 50 years and it does not appear that we can reduce this period to be less time like that which is allowed under the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) code (which is 12 years for affordable units). • If an affordability requirement is established by the local code then a n agreement is required prior to the issuing the permit for the ADU, that will be recorded with the land. Any future landowner of the property will have to accept the terms of this agreement. • An ADU established under the affordability provisions will require annual reporting and coordination with the property owner to ensure they are meeting the affordability requirement and is subject to Code Enforcement for failing to comply. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 7 The proposal to require an affordability component if two ADUs are constructed on a site could be the following (this is not currently part of the proposed Ordinance): (c) Only one (1) Two (2) ADUs may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1) single-family dwelling unit and one (1) a maximum of two (2) ADUs. For the placement of the second ADU, an affordability component is required and must meet the following: (1) One ADU must be an affordable rental unit reserved solely for "income-eligible households" and is subject to an agreement specifying the affordable housing requirements under this subsection to ensure that the housing shall serve only income-eligible households for a minimum period of 50 years. The monthly rent, including basic utilities, shall not exceed 30 percent of the income limit for the unit, and the housing owner shall submit a report to the Department of Community Development annually that documents how the affordable hou sing meets the terms of the recorded agreement. i. “Income-eligible households” in this section means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is at or below eighty (80) percent of the median family income adjusted f or family size, for Kitsap County, as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2) Prior to issuance, and as a condition to issuance, of the second ADU building permit, the applicant shall execute and record a declaration in a form acceptable to the Director that shall commit the applicant to satisfy the conditions to establishing a second ADU. How does the Affordability Requirement work for Seattle’s two ADU code? City of Seattle has required that if an 2 nd ADU is constructed on a single-family lot, that second unit (in some zones) shall be either constructed using Green Building Standards or must be rented as an affordable unit. They adopted this requirement late in 2019. As of January 2021, the City of Seattle has not permitted any 2nd ADU using the affordability component. Seattle mentioned that the 2nd ADU using the affordability requirement would typically be used for nonprofit developers due to the 50-year commitment. City of Seattle has been permitting many second ADUs using the Green Building Standard but was working on final numbers (which data was not available yet). Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 8 Potential Code Revision #4 – Allow 2nd ADU without additional parking space Council would like to receive comments on if the following should become part of the proposal: Revision 4: Allow the second ADU without additional parking requirements . The Planning Commission proposal for parking when allowing two ADUs on a parcel is the following (which is part of the proposed Ordinance): (g) The second accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. If only one ADU is onsite, it is not required to provide additional off-street parking space. The site must comply with BMC 20.48, specifically that the required parking spaces for the principal unit shall be provided and that all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering ve hicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. City Council inquired if the City could eliminate the requirement for the parking of the second ADU when frequent transit is nearby. This is a similar proposal to a recent State Law change. In 2020, Washington State lawmakers passed State Bill 6617 which requires jurisdictions to waive off-street parking requirements for ADUs when nearby frequent transit. The bill prohibits cities from imposing off-street parking requirements for ADUs with one-quarter mile of frequent transit, including commuter rail, rapid transit buses, or other public transportation that runs every 15 minutes during peak hours. The one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feet, is about a 5 to 10-minute walk. Currently Bremerton does not have public transit that qualifies to those standards. Though the City does not meet the “fre quent transit” qualifications as identified by the State at this time, the Council can still eliminate the parking requirement for the second ADU if it desires. Following the model of the State Bill, the need for more parking can be reduced if the property is near City Centers and commercial hubs as this is where buses converge and have more frequent transit than other areas of the City. The following is a potential code proposal for Council to consider (this is not currently part of the proposed Ordinance): (g) The following is required for the parking and driveways areas: (1) An accessory dwelling unit One ADU located onsite is not required to provide an additional off-street parking space. (2) A second ADU located onsite shall provide one (1) additional off-street parking space unless the property is located within 1,500 feet of City Center or commercial zones. (3) The site must comply with Chapter 20.48 BMC, specifically that the required parking spaces for the principal unit shall be provided and that all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 9 Potential Code Revision #5 – Prohibit ADU from being short-term rentals Council would like to receive comments on if the following should become part of the proposal: Revision 5: Prohibit all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals. The Council inquired if we allow two ADUs, can we limit the ADUs from being short-term vacation rentals? Currently the City does not regulate short-term rentals but the ADU code can contain provisions to prohibit them from being used in this manner . A proposed code could be: New Subsection (L) An ADU may not be used as a short-term rental and must be rented for a minimum of ninety days or more. This is very similar to an existing provision from Poulsbo Municipal Code 18.70.070(A)(5)(k). Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 10 How Does other jurisdictions regulate ADUs ? Loosening development restrictions for ADUs is an important tool that the city can utilize to provide a variety of housing types and income sources for the public. Both nationally and within Washington, providing more ADU flexibility is becoming increasing ly utilized. Over the next three pages is a table showing what regulations other jurisdictions are implementing: Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Seattle (amended 2019) (population 754,000) No 1000 sf maximum None None Two- either attached or detached in all single family zoned homes. Second ADU must be green construction or affordable. Tacoma (amended May 2019) (population 218,000) No 85% of the principal unit not to exceed 1,000 square feet None Generally match the main house in materials One Kirkland (amended March 2020) (population 93,000) No 1,200 sf maximum None for first ADU, one for second Entrance should be secondary in appearance Two- either attached or detached. No affordability requirements. Burien (amended December 2019) (population 52,000) No Detached: 800 square feet Attached: 1000 square feet No parking required for ADU if within a ¼ mile of transit stops Additions shall be consistent with the existing design features, detached ADUs shall match or compliment SFR. Two – one type of each attached and detached. No affordability requirements. Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 11 Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Poulsbo (not recently amended) (pop. 11,000) Yes – 6 months 800 sf maximum Yes, one space ADU should be consistent in appearance with primary house One Bainbridge Island (not recently amended) (pop. 25,000) No 900 sf maximum One for ADU, plus required SFR parking Must be designed to maintain appearance of SFR One Port Orchard (amended August 2020) (pop. 15,000) Yes – year round Attached: 40% of SFR + ADU, or 1000 sf, whichever is greater Detached: 40% of SFR, or 1000 sf, whichever is greater None for ADU, required SFR parking must be present Consistent in materials and design to the SFR One Kitsap County (not recently amended) (pop. 260,000) Yes, year round 50% of SFR, or 900 sf, whichever is smaller One No design requirements. One but is working on amendments and is considering allowing two Vancouver, WA (amended 2017) (pop. 184,000) No 800 sf maximum None ADU should be architecturally compatible with existing building One Memo to ADU Ordinance ⚫ Page 12 Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Portland, OR (amended March 2019) (pop. 655,000) No 75% of the principal unit not to exceed 800 square feet None ADUs taller than 15 feet must meet design standards One Bremerton (current) (pop. 41,000) Yes – year round 60% of the principal unit Yes, one space Criteria for roof pitch, eaves, materials, and an a la carte menu of design features One Bremerton (proposed) No 1000 square feet or 60% of the principal unit, whichever is larger None for first ADU, one for second ADU must match or complement the principal unit Two- either attached or detached Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Runyon 6 Snyder Ave Supports multiple ADUs, with lot size restrictions. Supports increasing the maximum size of ADUs from current baseline. Supports loosening design restrictions. Supports removing parking requirements. Supports loosening owner occupancy requirements. No specific comment. Submitted a draft code revision for ADUs. Draft code was noted. King 3 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way No comment. No comment, supports ‘tiny homes’. No specific comment. No specific comment. Believes the City has the ‘legal means to keep them owner- occupied’. Supports converting existing structures like garages to ADUs and ADU like housing. Presented idea of allowing interested parties to purchase garages and convert them to ADUs. The proposed code would allow some garages to be converted to ADUs. Kimble Not City resident. Supports this proposal. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No comment. Shared Kitsap Sun article, “ADU Beauty Pageant”. Stated County should follow suit with City’s ADU proposals. Walthall 4 Pennsylvania Ave Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Shared that the largest barrier for him in creating an ADU in his basement is the parking requirement. Sharman 2 E 18th Street No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. States that the City is experiencing a housing crisis of affordability, supports the new proposals for ADUs. Hopes that the City will reconsider how RV’s are defined. Tiny homes may be permitted as ADUs, both with current and proposed code. However, all dwellings in the City of Bremerton must be connected to the ground with a foundation and connected to City utilities. Tan = Generally opposed. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 1 of 61 Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Kitsap Building Association (Organization Comment, no specific district) Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal Supports this proposal. States the City does not regulate the design of Single-Family- Residences, and should treat ADUs the same. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Manning 2 Sanders Ave Opposes allowing two ADUs. Supports allowing a maximum ADU size of 1000 square feet, opposes larger ADUs. No specific comment. Opposes removing parking requirements, states there is a parking problem in West Bremerton and other neighborhoods. Opposes removing owner occupancy requirements, states owners ‘keep things in check for the neighborhood’. No specific comment. Studies conducted by the State of Oregon have shown most properties with ADUs remain owner occupied, even when it is not required. Rich 6 N Callow Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they fully support relaxing ADU regulations. Digby Not provided. States the opinion that Bremerton does not have the ability to accommodate additional hardscape with the current capacity of storm water runoff containment. Also states that construction removes vegetation, which is bad for the environment. No specific comments. Stated the opinion that ADUs should not be built in styles that results in Bremerton ‘regressing to a city known for slum housing’. States that it should be ensured that there is adequate street parking for an ADU. No specific comment, supports limit on vacation rentals. No specific comments. Bremerton’s low density residential zone has a maximum development coverage limit (maximum amount of impervious surfaces per lot) of 60%. That is not proposed to change. City code does not regulate the design of single-family residences, duplexes, or triplexes. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 2 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Halverson 6 Shorewood Dr/Madrona Point Dr Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. States that the on street parking on Shorewood Drive is an issue. Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. States that they are opposed to the ‘amendment proposed below as it regards the Shorewood drive/Madrona Point neighborhoods.’ Broussard Not City resident. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they became homeless after fleeing their home. Would like the opportunity to live in Kitsap County again in a tiny home. Grant 6 Madrona Point Dr Opposes increasing the number of allowed living units. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. States that there are parking issues on Madrona Point. ADUs are subject to additional development standards, including Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, in shoreline areas like Madrona Point. McDonald 3 Marlow Ave Opposes the provision to allow two ADUs. No specific comments. Opposes the design criteria proposal. Believes with the proposed design standards, ADUs will be cheap and unattractive. Believes parking should be required for ADUs in areas with a residential parking permit requirement. Opposes removing the owner occupancy requirement. Believes removing it will create landlord-tenant problems. No specific comments. Supports postponing the changes to ADU code. City code does not regulate the design of single-family residences, duplexes, or triplexes. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 3 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Lewis 2 Sanders Ave Opposes allowing ‘single resident/family lots to be turned into multi structure lots’. Believes this only helps big building companies. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing this requirement. Believes this will encourage ‘slum lord style ownership which will lead to the destruction of the community over time.’ No specific comments. Recommends the City focus energy on repairing neighborhood roads in East Bremerton or adding sidewalks. Current and proposed design standards would prohibit designs that appear to be multi- unit structures. No current code prohibits owners of single-family residences from renting their houses and living off site. Greising 7 Shorewood Dr Opposes this proposal. Believes too many rentals will bring down the quality of a neighborhood. No specific comment. No specific comment. Opposes this proposal. Believes parking car clutter will be a major problem. Opposes this proposal. No specific comment. Believes this proposal will ‘turn Bremerton into a third class junker city.’ No quantitative evidence suggests that renters lower neighborhood safety. Property maintenance code requires that owners maintain their properties, regardless of whether they are owner or renter occupied. The City utilizes pro-active code enforcement. Berbells 7 Shorewood Dr Opposes this proposal. Believes Bremerton is nicer to live in than Seattle because neighborhoods are less crowded. Believes overcrowding leads to more stress and crime, as well as noise and street traffic. No specific comments. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. Believes the City should use outlying areas for more homes, or possibly have homes in the County. See notes for comment 15. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 4 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Adams 5 7th St. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Supports ADUs. Does not believe they will solve the issue of affordable housing. Provided further comments about other suggestions for the City Council. Younger 7 Madrona Point Dr. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing parking requirement for first ADU. Opposes removing this requirement. Believes it will lead to absentee landlords. No specific comments. Believes the city should investigate other forms of providing affordable housing. Believes the notification of this proposal was not transparent. See notes on comment 15. City staff performed all required public noticing, including publishing notifications in the Kitsap Sun about each of 3 public meetings thus far, two of which had opportunities for public comment. Staff are continuously studying how to better reach members of the community. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 5 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Morris Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Requests that the City Council lift ordinances on ADUs. Believes ADUs help elderly people, young peple, and low income people afford safe and sanitary housing. States that the City needs to implement all the housing situations available, especially with the ongoing pandemic. Buck 6 N. Wycoff Ave Opposes this proposal. States that ‘I've had a few good renter/neighbors, but the vast majority have not been good neighbors.’ No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing parking requirement. States that parking is an issue, particularly in North Callow. States that renters in ADUs near them ‘take no responsibility for the neighborhood they live in.’ No specific comments. Believes a better solution for the housing shortage is to increase the availability of apartments and condominiums in Downtown Bremerton. See notes on comment 15. Development is continuing on housing projects in Downtown Bremerton. Large multifamily developments are expensive and time consuming undertakings, usually attempted by large developers. By contrast, most ADUs are developed by individual homeowners and provide small scale desirable housing, as well as income to homeowners. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 6 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Sundberg Not provided. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Torrez- Riley 4 5th St Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they ‘love this small urban center [of the Union Hill neighborhood] and the affordable housing options available through ADUs’. Gray Not provided. No specific comments. No specific comments. Supports this proposal. States that the design standards should be relaxed. Supports this proposal. States that they believe that the rules around parking should be relaxed. No specific comments. No specific comments. States that ‘ADUs are a great way to expand housing’ and ‘ADUs are needed and wanted.’ Reynolds 3 Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they ‘cannot be more happy that the City Council is meeting to discuss the current requirements.’ Requests that the City Council review the requirement that a single-family residence have two paved parking spaces prior to adding an ADU. The requirement of a single-family residence to supply two paved parking spaces is not proposed to be amended by this code. Specifically, the paving requirement is in consideration of the City’s right-of-ways and stormwater system, as gravel negatively impacts both. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 7 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Merrigan 4 Naval Ave Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they are ‘writing in support of ADUs. Our region is changing, lots of people are moving to Bremerton. We need lots of options to house them’. Lunden 2 Callahan Dr Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that there is always ample street parking in the Union Hill neighborhood, and it is easy walking / biking / transit distance from Downtown. Supports this proposal. States that concerns about defunct housing can be addressed through code enforcement. Supports this proposal. Trettin 4 8th St/14th St Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that ‘adding housing via ADUs will allow Bremerton to grow in a responsible manner.’ Albright Not provided Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that ADUs will ‘provide more good quality, affordable housing in our neighborhoods without the need to tear down entire blocks for apartments.’ Hopes to use an ADU to someday house elderly family members. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 8 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Archer Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they are extremely excited about the proposal. States: “Maximize the potential of properties that can support this type of situation and it would greatly benefit everyone all the way around.” Runyon (2nd Comment) 6 Snyder Ave Supports this proposal. States that the proposal “allows for an increase in housing stock WITHOUT direct taxpayer subsidy”. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that the code “brings ADU design criteria into conformity with design criteria for single family residential development.” Supports this proposal. States the proposal “reduces the need to create additional impervious surface by reducing the parking requirement”. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that the proposal brings the City into conformance with Legislature passed bill 1923. States that the proposal “helps restore and preserve private property rights.” Kitsap County Association of Realtors (Organization Comment, no specific district) Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 9 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Deans (Not received in time to be included in Public Hearing packet) 4 Supports this proposal. States that if proposal were implemented they would add a basement ADU to their property in addition to their backyard cottage. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that ‘street parking is ample’ in the Union Hill neighborhood. Supports this proposal. States that owner occupancy requirements are ill-suited to Bremerton and do not help provide affordable housing. Supports this proposal. States: “The proposed changes will provide much needed affordable housing. It incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to contribute to solving the dire need for more housing options. The extra income from ADUs helps homebuyers qualify for a mortgage (myself included), make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. Mockler (Not received in time to be included in Public Hearing packet) 6 Opposes this proposal. States that a 2nd ADU changes the character of a property and neighborhood. Opposes this change, states that lots with large ADUs will not have adequate space for greenery. No comment. Comment asks questions about proposal, does not state an opinion. Opposes this proposal. States that tension is less between owner and tenants when owner is on-site. States off-site owners will not care about the neighborhood. States that ‘Removing homeowners and replacing them at random with multiple renters is just a bad, very bad, not good idea.” Supports this proposal. States that support is conditional upon each structure to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. States that Bremerton needs housing badly, and provides several other possible solutions not relating to ADUs. All zones have a maximum allowable development coverage that is not proposed to change with this Zoning Code Amendment- for example, in the R-10 zone that maximum is 60%. Thus 40% of any lot in the R-10 zone must be uncovered space, potentially for greenery. Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 10 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Commenter Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Griffith (Not received in time to be included in Public Hearing packet) 1 Supports this proposal. States that with more housing will come more shops as well, which they state would be good. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that privacy between tenants and landlords should be considered in the design. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States: “I have seen a lot of ADUs in other cities. They are generally quaint, even picturesque. Landscaping helps unify the dwelling into the lot and the neighborhood.” And: “I rent out a room in my home, since I no longer use my second floor. This has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I think other citizens of Bremerton will benefit from the opportunity for ADUs.” Barnes (Not received in time to be included in Public Hearing packet) 4 No comments. No comments. No comments. Opposes this proposal. States that parking is an issue in the Union Hill neighborhood, and states that some parking solution should be included. No comments. No comments. States: “Parking is really my only concern with this proposal. I am fine with making more housing available especially low income.” Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 11 of 61 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING ADU CODE CHANGES As of January 27, 2021. These comments included discussion from December 16, 2020 Public Hearing Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 12 of 61 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 13 of 61 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 14 of 61 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 15 of 61 1 Allison Satter From:Greg Wheeler Sent:Sunday, November 15, 2020 8:56 PM To:jndkimble@wavecable.com Cc:City Council; Jennifer Hayes; Andrea Spencer; Allison Satter Subject:Fwd: Loosening ADU Restrictions Attachments:ADU Beauty Pageant gallery - Kimble.pdf; ATT00001.htm Thank you Dave for your email and for sharing this potential action with Commissioner Garrido. I am sharing your email with the City Council and City staff for their information and to add your comments as a matter of record. We agree on the importance of this ADU and I appreciate you took the time to offer your support. Take care and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Sincerely, Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Dave Kimble <jndkimble@wavecable.com> Date: November 15, 2020 at 12:35:10 PM PST To: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Loosening ADU Restrictions Reply-To: <jndkimble@wavecable.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Greg, So do you think the chances are this time of getting the adjustments approved for ADU type structures strong? I shared the recent article regarding your plan with Charlotte Garrido. She mentioned she did not note the nuisance of the story and thanked me for 'catching it' for her. I sure think it would be wise for the county to move in the same direction. They are really missing the boat if they don't. Sincerely, Dave Kimble Manchester The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.Virus-free. www.avg.com Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 16 of 61 ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 1 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 17 of 61 ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 2 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 18 of 61 ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 3 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 19 of 61 ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 4 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 20 of 61 ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 5 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 21 of 61 1 Allison Satter From:Greg Wheeler Sent:Sunday, November 15, 2020 7:40 AM To:Kevin Walthall Cc:Lori Wheat; Thomas Knuckey; Allison Satter; Andrea Spencer; Jennifer Hayes Subject:Re: ADUs and 6th Street Good morning Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts this weekend on both the upcoming ADU ordinance being proposed to City Council and the ongoing discussion on how to make 6th St. better for residents and businesses. I am including officials from the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development and Public Works in my reply for their information and to add your comments as a matter of record. Take care and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 Sent from my iPad On Nov 14, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Kevin Walthall <kswalthall@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi all, First off, I hope you're all staying sane in these fairly insane times. Thanks for being public servants. I've been a social worker, and I'd imagine being a public servant is sort of like that, but with more public criticism. Thank you. Second, I'm elated by the news about loosening restrictions on ADUs. If there is anything I can do to promote that cause, let me know. I think it's a win-win-win. In terms of home value, Bremerton has been extraordinarily good to us. Our home value has more than doubled since we bought our home five years ago. I consider this a huge blessing, but I'm aware others aren't so privileged. Through the years, I've kicked around various schemes for leveraging this equity we stumbled into for not just a dream home, but a dream development. I want to build for others. It's simply a good investment, but also I've realized that when we have people over for dinner and I spend four hours cooking paella and we serve it up in my hand-built garden, I have the same feeling that I get when I scheme for these developments. I just genuinely like creating experiences and environments for others to enjoy. My hospitality drive pushes me to aspire to developing, while my obligation to my wife and baby keep me grounded in a healthy fear of failure. I've come to the conclusion that I want to leverage our equity to build multifamily and use some rentals to supplement our income - and my retirement, which, quite frankly, is not promising. I see a duplex-quadruplex in Bremerton (or the Bremerton area) as the ultimate insurance against a beleaguered Social Security. But for several years, I've lived with the conclusion that my own property is simply beyond developing, as is almost all of Bremerton. We've thought about adding a Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 22 of 61 2 second story - we love our neighborhood's amenities and our location, but we simply don't want a dream home, we want (and perhaps need) an income-generating investment. So spending upwards of $100k to add some square footage to our house doesn't make sense if we can't add some means to pay for it. A basement ADU conversion would subsidize our growth as a family. Like most Bremerton homes, we have a basement that could be converted, but the single biggest roadblock in our way was the parking requirement for ADUs. It isn't hard to dig an exterior entrance into a basement. It is hard however - and visually scarring - to dig a second driveway into our house, built on a slope, with a basement garage. The parking part was totally cost-prohibitive in our situation. We could add some square footage for our own enjoyment, but our property was of limited income value to us. We had resigned ourselves to look elsewhere, even outside Bremerton city limits. Allowing ADUs lets us leverage our most valuable asset to our benefit. Loosening these restrictions will make every basement in Bremerton a potential source of income - and an affordable dwelling for those looking to rent. I'm proud of you guys for tackling the multiple issues holding ADUs back at the same time: parking minimums, aesthetic design criteria, and owner occupancy. Another issue for us was that if we ever did move, we would have to sell our home. That made it less attractive to build a basement ADU. Overnight, we're looking at a potential game-changer as our family outgrows our little 2-bed, 1-bath "starter home." If these deregulations pass, our home can grow with us in every way, contributing to our incomes as well as our square footage. Please, please, please - continue to go big on this thing. Finally, I'm concerned the best ideas about revamping 6th Street are stalling out. 6th is a bad neighbor. It serves non-tax-paying commuters to the detriment of the tax-paying residents. It's noisy. It's ugly. It hosts blight. My priorities for 6th's redesign are ultimately 1) traffic calming/safety, and 2) aesthetics/attracting new development. And I guess I could write a novel about those things that would bore Dostoyevski, but are there better alternatives? Would it be hard to establish a Union Hill Advisory Council? I have no desire to be a lone visionary - the Garguilles of Noah's Ark fame have done well on this street, and I would really really value their opinion going forward. I've talked to "Cash," Midtown Market's owner, and he has a vision for his own property that he thinks is prohibited. There's room for many people's vision on 6th; I just want it to be the best that it can be, and I fear we're losing momentum and vision with 6th's rebuild. I would like to see narrower lanes, wider sidewalks, street trees, landscaped pedestrian islands, landscaped chicanes - anything, really, that will beautify 6th and make it more attractive to redevelopment and the people who cross it on a near daily basis. I would like to see 6th become an attractive, pedestrian-friendly boulevard linking the heart of pedestrian-friendly Charleston and the heart of pedestrian-friendly downtown, a gateway for bikes and pedestrians in the same way Charleston Beach Rd. is a gateway for cars entering the city. I fear I'm becoming a constant critic. I want to become an effective contributor to solutions. How can I best do that? There's a great maxim in the Orthodox Christian tradition: "Love your neighbor, and don't move around a lot." Essentially, don't bail when loving your neighbor or neighborhood is hard. That's something I'm trying to live by. The ADU issue makes it easier to do. Hearing more input on 6th and tailoring it to redeveloping the heart of a neglected neighborhood does the same. -- Sincerely, Kevin Walthall Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 23 of 61 From: Andrew Sharman [mailto:andsha@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:19 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU Regulations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Bremerton City Council, I have been informed that the city council is looking at making changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. I wanted to share my story regarding a former tiny house that was located on my property in Bremerton. Unfortunately the city's current regulations left me no choice but to remove the tiny house. Removing the tiny house took away what was a beautiful example of affordable housing in an established supportive community. I hope that the changes that the city is looking to make reflect the needs of the everyday residents of Bremerton and not just big delopors. We have an opportunity with ADU's to change the house crises. With reduced regulations neighbors, friends, and family's would be able to open up their homes to create more housing that is grounded in the community. I hope this story can be an example of what we want to see change in these new regulations. Here is my story: A few years ago I felt stuck. Like the only point in life was to work so that I could pay a pile of bills society decided I needed to pay (rent, insurance, utilities, gas... the list goes on). I was living in a city with no sign of getting more affordable and at the beginning of my career making next to nothing scraping by. As I started to evaluate my life I looked at how I could simplify life to reduce the stress of feeding into this cycle. Work, eat, pay rent, work, eat, pay more bills... One of the biggest expenses that came up for me that I felt I had very little control over was Housing. I felt that there needed to be more options other than paying rent or buying a house. Both were too expensive. Having roommates was one way to decrees that expense but it didn’t make that much of a difference in the long run and commonly came with other issues. Like cleaning up after messy people. As I approached my mid twenties I thought to myself "How do I get out of this endless cycle?" For me finding a way to reduce my housing cost was crucial and at the center of how I could make a change. I started to dog sit on the side to save extra money. It also gave me some time away from roommates and I got to play and have fun with other people’s dogs. As I started to get booked for more and more dog sittings I realized what is the point in paying rent if I’m never home. So I sold most of my stuff and put what I wanted to keep in my parents garage and started moving every week from dog house to dog house. I did this for about two years. As I started putting money aside from my dog sitting and not having to pay rent anymore I felt hope. It started to open up opportunities I had never considered. As I considered things I could do with the money I was saving I kept coming back to “do I want to get back into the cycle of working to pay a bill?” I realized quickly I wasn’t going to rent another overly priced place and I wasn’t willing to take on the stress of a mortgage. So I started looking for that other option I longed for. I started with the idea of living on a boat, but didn’t like the idea of living on a boat in winter or having limited head space. I didn’t even want to commit to slip fees, pump out fees and utilities. So I thought I might like to build something. I liked design and loved creating things. Did I have any real experience building? No. Did I Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 24 of 61 feel that I needed experience to build? No. So I went for it! I started by designing a bus conversion. Then tiny houses. A tiny house felt right because I could build it to fit me. I could build it to reflect who I am, what I like in a home and it would give me the freedom I desired. I learned to budget what I thought it would cost and I decided if I could get half saved I would be able to get started and save the other half as I built. It worked! It was hard. It was lonely at times. It felt crazy. It was an adventure but most of all it worked and brought me freedom to escape the cycle I so loathed As I finished the build I started to think about where I would park my tiny house. It was hard to find anything that was close to my work or any major city that I could possibly work in. I had done so well in gaining the skills building my tiny house that I decided it would be a good investment to take on a fixer upper. The big house would give me a new project, an investment, and most of all a place to park the tiny house. I found the perfect fixer and moved in with my brother to start renovations. Shortly after finishing the improvements on the big house I was able to move the tiny house to the property and use the big house to help others. Over the last few years I have been able to help numerous friends by housing them as they transition in their lives. Some have been through divorces and have used the big house as a refuge to get back on their feet, Others have been saving to pay off student loans or saving to go back to school. My brother and his girlfriend have been able to save for a place of their own some day. I like to call it the house that keeps giving back. In return I have been able to live in a community of amazing friends and with the perfect spot to park the tiny house. Unfortunately as time has gone by the city of Bremerton has made changes to implement code enforcement to a new level. I have been asked in the last few months to no longer occupy my tiny house even though I have full access to my big house and use the big house for cooking, showering, and other restroom needs. The reality is my tiny house falls into a grey area. It is not an ADU because it is too small in square footage and it is not on a foundation. It isn't an RV because it was built on a utility trailer and has never been registered as an RV. The city has decided to categorize it as an RV rather than work to create a new category. As an RV I am only allowed to occupy it 30 day in a calendar year and can not use it as a primary residents. Also it is required to be parked on pavement or a driveway as an RV. Because of these restrictions the city will not let me pave an existing driveway to keep it parked in its current location. Even if the city did allow me to keep it and pave the driveway for a place to park it, according to the code I would be breaking the law sleeping in it each night. It saddens me that Bremerton has decided to not work with me after so many years of creative problem solving to get to this point. The impact this decision makes on me is minor in comparison to the number of people's lives it could have helped that would have come through my big house over the years. It's very important to me that the city and its citizens work together to create more housing. We are in a serious housing crisis. Without more housing we are not doing our part to help low income people and people that have fallen into homelessness as a result of the housing inequality. I am trying to do my part to create affordable housing and fix up existing properties so that we can live in a better community. I hope we can create a system that helps lift people out of the hopeless cycle I felt as a young adult. I want to thank you for your hard work as you design these new regulations on ADU's. I hope my story can help in some way to bring change. If you would ever like to talk more about this story please feel free to reach out by email or phone (360)- 689-7804 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 25 of 61 Best regards, Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 26 of 61 December 7, 2020 Bremerton City Council 345 6th St, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Dear Council Members, The Kitsap Building Association (KBA) wishes to formally support the proposed amendments to BMC Title 20 for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), drafted by Community Development and unanimously approved by the City’s Planning Commission. Specifically, the KBA urges the Council to approve and adopt the following amendments: • Revise the regulations to change the maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot (proposal is to allow all lots with a single-family home to have 2 ADUs) • Revise the maximum size limitations (as the State of Washington recommends) • Refine the design criteria, which currently requires that the ADU exterior must compliment the single- family home and/or neighborhood. The City does not currently regulate single-family homes design. This should not extend to ADUs. • Amend the parking requirement (additional parking spaces is not required for 1st ADU, and a 2nd ADU onsite would have to provide one additional parking space). • Remove the owner occupancy requirement. • Allow certain non-conforming structures to be converted for use as ADUs (this would allow existing garages on front property line to be converted to ADU). The KBA wishes to thank Community Development Director Andrea Spencer, and Planning Manager Allison Satter for engaging us in the amendment discussions. I would also like to acknowledge the City Planning Commission, and their efforts to ensure the proposed changes to BMC Title 20 for ADUs are in the best interest of Bremerton, WA. Sincerely, Russ Shiplet Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer Kitsap Building Association Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 27 of 61 From: MDM [mailto:MDM4711@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:25 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Pat Sullivan <Pat.Sullivan@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: 12/9/2020 Bremerton City Council Study Session and 12/16/2020 Council Meeting - ADU’s CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council, Based on a quick read of the proposed revised ordinance, it appears the following are the primary proposed revisions to the ADU ordinance: - Allow 2 ADUs and a primary dwelling on the property. - ADUs may be up to 1,000 sq ft or not more than 60% of the primary dwelling whichever is greater - All exterior design elements requirements have been removed. - Only the 2nd ADU must provide 1 off-street parking space. - Property owner does not have to live in the primary dwelling. Removing a requirement to provide off-street parking will be detrimental to existing neighborhoods. There is already a serious parking problem in West Bremerton, and that is occurring in more Bremerton City neighborhoods. If it cannot sustain off-street parking, it should not be allowed to be built in a location. While it is ideal to think of having a heavily walkable or bicycle friendly city, with great public transit options, Bremerton is far away from being that City. The majority of renters/homeowners have more than one vehicle so this change could add a minimum of three more cars cramming into existing street parking throughout the city. That is a negative impact to residents and neighbors, so I disagree with this change. Allowing ADUs to be 1,000 feet or greater depending on the size of the primary dwelling is also potentially detrimental to existing neighborhoods and residents and will not be a benefit to affordable or deeply affordable housing. What the City lacks is more modest sized homes that provide great rental or home ownership to those just starting out on their own. A 1,000 square foot home is sufficient space for two people to live comfortably and provides a more affordable option to more people, thus helping our home insecurity problem. I strongly encourage a maximum size for ADUs of 1,000 square feet. Allowing 2 ADUs per property without more definitive requirements based on the size of the property, etc., is an appalling change. I strongly disagree with allowing more than one ADU per property. Removing the requirement that the primary unit be owner-occupied just turns this into trouble for neighborhoods. We have one house in our neighborhood that rents rooms out to military men and women. The property owner lives out of state. There have been up to eight additional cars on the street based on the number living in this house. It's easy to imagine four vehicles per ADU if the size is over 1,000 sq feet. There have been other issues throughout the years with this rental situation - excessive speed, trash on the sidewalks and streets, loud parties, illegal fireworks, etc. Having a property owner live on the property helps keep things in check for the neighborhood. I disagree with removing this requirement - it's a benefit to developers or rental owners - not to residents and neighborhoods. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 28 of 61 Thanks, Diane Manning Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 29 of 61 From: Kate Rich [mailto:rich.katelyn@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 10:55 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Adu proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! I'm a home owner in district 6. I fully support relaxing adu regulation. I would love to provide affordable housing in my own back yard whole simultaneously making my own life more affordable. Please vote yes on this proposal Katelyn Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 30 of 61 From: Susan Digby <digbycarsey@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:54 AM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU input CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Allison, I have just emailed my input to the city council and it occurred to me that I should have copied you too. So here it is: I am generally in favor of ADU’s but with caveats. Bremerton already has a considerably higher percentage of rental properties than other cities so I think we need to move stepwise and cap the ADU development at one per lot and take into account the following issues: 1) Ensuring that ADUs reduce local housing shortage. We need to ensure that ADU’s do increase the number of housing options available to people and do not just result in short term holiday rentals. Short term holiday rentals benefit the home owner but they do not solve the issue of housing shortage. In increasing the allowable number of ADUs we need to put a limit on the number that can be used for short term (holiday) rentals. 2) Parking safety We need to ensure that parking for ADUs is available somewhere. 86.6% of Bremertonians own a car and probably 100% of holiday renters own cars, (sometimes more than one if it involves a family gathering). Hence there needs to be room on the ADU’s street to park a car belonging to a renter without impeding traffic or pedestrians. 3) Storm water runoff mediation Bremerton’s ability to handle storm water runoff is already taxed to the limit which results in periodic sewage overflows during periods of heavy rain. With increased hardscape we need to ensure that we maximize local water retention by using water-permeable surface materials. Permeable materials include pavers, permeable concrete or gravel rather than asphalt. Environmentally this is a good solution as, in addition to not compounding the sewage overflows issue, permeable surfaces reduce pollutants that are otherwise routed into the Sound. Recent work has shown that chemicals from tires, (6PPD-quinone), kills salmon before they can spawn. Dyes Inlet, which Bremerton surrounds (and extends into with its various peninsulas such as Marine Drive), is an important route for spawning salmon. Water-permeable surface materials also reduce surface heating which, in a time of accelerating climate change, is important. In removing vegetation to build ADUs we are negatively impacting the environment so we need to do what we can to minimize our impact. The environmental speaks to the need to cap ADUs to one per lot. Rain gardens are also a solution to surface runoff. Again this speaks to the need to cap ADUs to one per lot; the minimum lot size for an ADU is environmentally small at 3200sq. ft., (eg. 40ft x 80ft or 57 ft. sq). 4) Good Design Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 31 of 61 I don’t know what to suggest but I have the following concern. We need to ensure that ADUs are built in styles that do not result in Bremerton regressing to a city known for slum housing. I don’t know how this can be done but the approach needs to focus on “small, functional and cute” rather than on a return to cheap, hastily constructed, wartime housing. It would seem that good design, whatever that means, increases the value of the property and increases the image of Bremerton as a whole. An approach of matching an ADU to an existing house style may not be the best approach. Good design is needed without a huge number of regulations. I think some thought needs to go into this question. Best regards, Susan Digby Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 32 of 61 Begin forwarded message: From: Paul <oysterbay007@comcast.net> Subject: Fwd: Important Public Hearing Next Wednesday regarding ADUs Date: December 11, 2020 at 2:02:38 PM PST Dear Neighbors, I am very much opposed to the amendment proposed below as it regards the Shorewood Drive/Madrona Point neighborhoods. The increased population in our little community will bring about increased parking demands. Some of those demands will be met by on street parking. Already the on street parking on Shorewood Drive is an issue. Where it exists folks have difficulty exciting their driveways and safely entering the street. I have had close calls in the past for this very reason. Paul Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 33 of 61 From: simplyshellib <simplyshellib@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:22 PM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU input from a homeless wanderer prior home owner district 4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am providing comment about ADU if that is what the city is working on dealing with those unfortunate souls who have no place to live in safety. In June 2019 I had to flee my home. As this is a public forum, I became homeless. Couch surfing. I own a home on 9th street, in Bremerton. After a long ugly divorce, that sale is just now in closing. Therefore, with some equity, I could live in a tiny home. I have been a good neighbor. Please allow me the opportunity to live in Kitsap County again. It is a travesty that we in the USA do not benefit from shelter and safety as a basic necessity of life. Thank you, Shelli Broussard Present co owner (non resident due dv) 1525 9th St Bremerton WA 98337 Simplyshellib@yahoo.com Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 34 of 61 From: Paul Grant [mailto:paulrenig@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:08 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Public hearing regarding ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Madrona Pt. I am very much opposed to increasing the number of allowed living units. My neighbor routinely parks on the street blocking the view from my driveway. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 35 of 61 From: Jim McDonald [mailto:jimmc90@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:41 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Proposed Amendments to the ADU regulations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council members, It is interesting to see what 10 years or so does to change one's perspective. A decade ago, the City Council goals focused on reducing the number of rentals; increasing home ownership; and the average household income of the City's residences. Those were lofty goals and I wonder about their relevance when considering the proposed changes to the ADU regulations. It would also have been helpful to evaluate the proposed changes with data related to rental rates in Bremerton and home ownership rates. I would support postponing the changes of this regulation until it can be fine tuned a bit more. Specifically: 1. Eliminate the provision to have 2 ADUs per lot. This is a de facto new zoning code and it should be eliminated. 2. Change the parking requirement based on an analysis of the current parking environment. For example, require the additional parking if the ADU is in an area that already has a residential parking permit requirement. 3. Maintain the home-ownership requirement for the initial permitting of the ADU. We have Landlord - tenant problems already. We should not be looking to increase these problems for our neighborhoods. 4. Reinstate some or all of the design standards. I agree that designing an ADU to more closely match the existing house will cost more; however, those costs will be more than offset by the rent and the appearance and appreciation to the homeowner and the neighborhood. As currently written, shed roofs that matched the color and siding of the existing house would be allowed. Cheap and unattractive is not what I envision for infill in our neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration and your service! R, Jim McDonald 1311 Marlow Ave, B6 Bremerton, WA 98310 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 36 of 61 From: Martin Lewis [mailto:m.james.l13@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 7:27 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Counsel members, I have read through the rezoning proposal and do not agree with it. I feel that allowing this to pass would severely hurt the neighborhoods of Bremerton and take a bad turn towards slum lord property owners. Allowing single resident/family lots to be turned into multi structure lots ONLY helps big building companies and allowing the property owner to not live on the property will encourage slum lord style ownership which would lead to the destruction of the community over time. As a resident I feel that this bill should be struck down and the committee focus on more things to help the community like repairing neighborhood roads in East Bremerton, or adding sidewalks to the neighborhoods to make it safer for kids and families to walk. Thank you. Martin Lewis Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 37 of 61 From: ron greising [mailto:rongreising@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 6:46 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. A terrible idea. Parking car clutter will be a major problem. To many rentals bring down the quality of a neighborhood. Renters do not maintain there living space as well. What is to stop investors from buying homes and building ADUs on the property. The same could be done by be existing home owners. Build the ADU then move out and rent both units or more. Again very bad idea. Great way to be turn bremerton into a third class junker city. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 38 of 61 From: Laurie Berbells [mailto:lberbells@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:42 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: lberbells@comcast.net Subject: City Council Meeting On Wednesday, December 16 at 5:30pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bremerton City Council, We are NOT in favor of allowing single-family residential homes to have 2 accessory dwelling units in addition to a private resident in Bremerton. Bremerton has always been so much better to live in then Seattle due to nicer neighborhoods that are less crowded. Overcrowding adds to more stress and crime. There are many walkers on our neighborhood street where additional traffic due to additional dwellings could hurt our walkers and/or their pets. Also, it would be an increase in noise. We understand it is a way for the city to increase their funding revenue, but we think the city should use their outlying areas for more homes or increase the size, if possible from the county. Thank you, Jim and Laurie Berbells 1702 Shorewood Drive Bremerton, WA. 98312 360-377-7733 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 39 of 61 From: Matthew Adams [mailto:matthew.dw.adams@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:53 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU comments for City Council Meeting-For Public Record CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Wheeler, City Council Members and Citizens of Bremerton, My name is Matthew Adams, and with my family we reside in District 5. I am in favor of ADUs (Auxillary Dwelling Units). But I do not believe this will solve the issue of affordable housing within Bremerton. Since the City of Bremerton currently allows for ADUs to be built, at an average of 2 a year, is this really the issue? By its very definition affordable housing is "housing which is deemed affordable to those with a median household income." The median household income for Bremerton is $54,000. That's not a lot. Is the real issue the amount of homes available, or the median household income? On 30 Oct 2017, during the debate at the Admiral Theatre hosted by Kitsap Sun writer Josh Farley, Michael Goodnow stated "I am PRO affordable housing!" And yet, since being elected what has Councilman Goodnow done to further the issue of affordable housing in Bremerton? Nothing. But he has focused solely on using his position to further his personal interests, as well as leverage his special interest groups into positions to benefit from the Citizens of Bremerton. That sounds like his "White Privilege, lots of it" Speech from July 2020 is on full display now for the public to witness for themselves. We have families in District 5 that do not meet the threshold for the Bremerton median household income. For the families who do not meet this criteria, this holiday season will be a difficult, and challenging time. Everyday life for them is a struggle. These families, as well as others throughout Bremerton are hungry, broken and looking for relief to help their families. Despite this, Councilman Goodnow has 3 Christmas trees in his home on full display for the public. Honestly, it's a slap in the face to those who walk by his home, and are unable to provide for themselves. This shows how out of touch Councilman Goodnow is with his constituents, Citizens of Bremerton and with the affordable housing issue in Bremerton. Another example of "White Privilege, lots of it" to quote the Councilman himself. On 30 Oct 2020, Councilman Goodnow went on the "Heilman & Haver Podcast" to promote his personal agenda. This clip is available on Youtube, as well as Twitter. I encourage the public to watch the clip. No COVID-19 protocols were being followed, and this was during a time when the business he was hosting the interview in was actually shut down to the public. No masks, no social distancing, just Michael doing what he does best: promote himself at the expense of the Citizens of Bremerton. I want to thank Mayor Wheeler and the City Council Members who demanded to hear from their constituents prior to casting their votes. You get it. You understand, and you allow for the Citizens of Bremerton to be heard. For those of you who don't want to listen to the voters in your districts, your true colors are showing. Do not forget, you were voted into this position to listen first, vote second. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 40 of 61 If Bremerton Lives Matter to you, then help out the families who helped put you where you are today and address the issue with the median household income in Bremerton. The first step is taking a portion of your December wages from your elected positions and donating that not to a special interest group that you have ties to, but to the Citizens of Bremerton who are hungry, and struggling during this holiday season. May your conscience be your guide. Happy Holidays to you all and your families. v/r, Matthew Adams District 5 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 41 of 61 December 14, 2020 Bremerton City Council: I am writing in regards to the proposed ADU amendment to the BMC. Like many of you know, I am a Libertarian who strongly believes in private property rights. That said, I am not opposed to ADUs as a whole; rather, certain aspects of this proposal concern me. In the last eight months, I have walked the Madrona Point neighborhood almost every day. One of the good things about my daily ramble is that I have become very well acquainted with my neighbors and the 100+ homes in our small community. Owner occupancy Yesterday, I spoke with several people of varying political viewpoints. They had mixed opinions about the number of ADUs, but all strongly agreed that the owner should live on the property. Over the years, I have fielded constituents' calls. Many involve an absentee landlord who only worries about getting paid. If the owner lived on the site, they would care about loud noises in the wee hours of the morning, guns shots/fireworks, aggressive dogs, vehicles on the front lawn - - all things that have been issues. Lack of transparency and the appearance of “under the table” deals The City’s notification in regards to this change reminds me of the section in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: “But the plans were on display…” "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes, I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard." The comic satire reflects the City’s notification to Bremerton homeowners. Last week, the mayor said to go out to the various community groups. Despite the obvious fact we are in a stay-at-home order and cannot interface in person, I have attended several community Zoom meetings and never heard anything about this change. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 42 of 61 This issue came to my attention, not as one would have supposed (from my husband); rather, an acquaintance told me about it. He is a large Kitsap County home developer and informed me that he recently had several meetings with the mayor to get the new ADU amendment passed. He builds $500k+ homes, which I have no problem with since my father was a high-end home builder, but do not be fooled into thinking my friend and other developers plan to build low-income homes. My father found out years ago that there is much more profit in high-end homes. The question will likely be denied, but I suspect that developers have permit packages ready to submit the moment this passes. Once "the genie is out of the bottle," I see no way stricter requirements could be later imposed. The unintended consequences are numerable. Illegal ADUs During my daily walks, I was surprised to discover the number of ADUs (rented basements, garages, and separate structures), almost all “illegal” under the current code. City officials made it clear that they have no intention of curbing illegal ADUs, which begs the question: WHY HAVE RULES/ZONING CODE? It is like speed limits but no enforcement… Affordable Housing by design rather than this 'Band-aid approach' Affordable housing could have been addressed in the redevelopment of Anderson Cove, which the Bremerton Planning Commission favored, yet the council failed to approve. As a regular watcher of the city council meetings, you could have addressed the affordable housing issue this time last year by rezoning the Anderson Cove area into a higher density. Ironically, those who strongly support affordable housing voted against it. That was an opportunity when you could have made a beneficial long-term solution for the housing shortage. The West Park redevelopment is another example of creating a deliberate positive rezoning of an area to increase affordable housing. This current proposal is like applying an infected band-aid to treat a heart attack – it will not fix the problem but makes the situation worse. Parking Issues Bremerton has long had a parking problem. You formed task forces, made proposals, yet the issue continues. Adding more residents will exasperate the problem. Assuming that a vehicle will park in a garage is invalid. Especially with smaller homes, garages are often used as a storage unit rather than a parking place. If the city encourages residents to park on the street that hinders large emergency vehicles a quick approach to those in need, tragic consequences will occur. Please consider that your actions could dramatically harm our residential neighborhoods. Kristina Younger 1415 Madrona Point Drive Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 43 of 61 From: Jodi Morris [mailto:mojojodi@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:24 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please lift ordinances on ADUs to help our elderly, young people just starting out and low income citizens afford safe, sanitary and affordable housing. This is such an obvious solution to the housing shortage that one wonders why changes were shot down in 2017. With still no real plan for getting covid under control as we don't have enough vaccines for everyone, many people are facing homelessness at no fault of their own plus most of us are an emergency away from becoming homeless to begin with. We need to implement all the housing solutions available at this time. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 44 of 61 From: Buck, Patrick [mailto:patrick.buck@navy.mil] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:41 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units City Council, I reside in District 6 and saw the article about Accessory Dwelling Units in the Kitsap Sun and even though the author has some valid points, he completely neglects others. I've owend my home at 1910 N. Wycoff Ave for almost 20 years now. I have a Duplex on one side of my house and a house with an ADU on the other. I've had almost 2 decades of experience with renters and landlords as well a have seen the effects that multiple ADU's have on a neighborhood. If you are familiar with Callow, north of 15th, you know that there are several houses with ADU's in that neighborhood. Parking is atrocious, the street looks like a used car lot most times of the day. I had this problem where I live, my trash didn't get picked up for 3 weeks because the renters in the ADU's take no responsibility for the neighborhood that they live in and park wherever they want, and that I have found is the main problem that the author is ignoring. Renters, probably mostly good people, don't take any responsibility for the neighborhood that they live in. I've had a few good renter/neighbors, but the vast majority have not been good neighbors. You can't place complete blame for this on the landlord, try as they might, when they get someone who appears at first to be a good renter but then turns out to be terrible, it takes them months to evict that person and the whole while the neighborhood suffers. By allowing more ADU's into a neighborhood that was designed to be a single family home neighborhood you increase parking issues, noise complaint issues, traffic issues, and the ones who suffer are the homeowners who live in those neighborhoods. I believe a better resolution to the housing shortage would be more condiminiums or apartments in the downtown core, somewhere that is designed to have high density, not turning somewhere that wasn't designed to be high density into a high density area. Thanks for your time. Patrick Buck 1910 N. Wycoff Ave Bremerton Patrick.Buck@comcast.net Patrick.Buck@navy.mil Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 45 of 61 From: Monica Sundberg [mailto:msundberg7@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:43 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Proposed Changes to ADU's CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there, I'm emailing to voice my support for the proposed changes to the ADU code. I agree with all of the proposed code changes: amending the parking requirements, reducing or removing the design standards, allowing 2 ADU's per lot, removing owner occupancy, revising max size limits, and allowing certain non-conforming units to be converted for use as ADUs. Thank you, Monica Sundberg Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 46 of 61 From: Jessica Torrez-Riley [mailto:jessicatorrezriley@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:23 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Support loosening ADU changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a new resident of Bremerton, I am happy to call the Union Hill neighborhood home and feel so lucky to have bought my first house here in Bremerton. I love this small urban center and the affordable housing options available through ADUs. Have met some great neighbors of all ages and backgrounds living in these units. I encourage the City Council to approve loosening of the ADU guidelines to allow Bremerton to use all our space efficiently and help provide more housing options throughout the city. Thank you, Jessica Torrez Riley Bremerton 98337 -- -- Jessica Torrez-Riley C: 425-442-4712 linkedin.com/in/jessicatorrezriley Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 47 of 61 From: Danessa Gray [mailto:graydani03@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:11 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU's are Awesome! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ADU's are a great way to expand housing in our cute little city, and we definitely need that. ADU's are needed and wanted! I believe that the rules around parking (see below) should be relaxed: (h) Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. I also believe that the design standards should be relaxed as well so that they do not have to match the existing home: (f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single- family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. Thank you so much, Danessa Gray Bremerton WA Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 48 of 61 From: Keri Weber [mailto:keriweber3@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:16 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: December 16, 2020 City Council Meeting - Question for purposed updates to ADU city requirements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, My husband and I are currently in the beginning planning stages of building an ADU on our property within Bremerton city limits and cannot be more happy that the city council is meeting to discuss the current requirements! We will definitely be viewing the council meeting scheduled tomorrow. I did want to suggest one comment/question for consideration by the city council as it does relate to current requirements. One topic for discussion is to remove the requirement for adding an additional dedicated off-street parking spot if adding one ADU, which is an update we strongly support. My concern pertains to the requirements for the primary single-family dwelling. I see that regardless of the purposed changes to 20.46.010 for parking, the primary must still comply with BMC 20.48. I reviewed 20.48.060 and also confirmed with the city Planning Department that the parking for the single family residence would be required to meet code: two paved, off-street parking spaces, a minimum of 8 x 18 feet. This will be a condition of approval of the ADU building permit (& the paving would need to be completed before Final Occupancy). Our property already has two dedicated off-street parking spots, however it is currently gravel. The cost for paving the existing parking spots is a large expense (approx. $5,000) and we are questioning the need to have them paved. While paving is a nice improvement, we would like the city council to review the requirement for it to be paved and if that requirement can be waived in place of using a different material, such as gravel. Thank you for your time and consideration. Keri Reynolds Manette Resident Sent from my iPhone Please excuse any typos Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 49 of 61 From: Travis Merrigan [mailto:tmerrigan@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:58 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Support for ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi city council, I'm writing in support of ADUs. Our region is changing, lots of people are moving to Bremerton. We need lots of options to house them. Big apartment complexes? Great. Vast tracks of new suburban housing? Sure. But here within the core of the city, we can provide relatively inexpensive homes, and opportunities for home owners to create additional sources of revenue. I live next to an ADU in my home on Naval. I like having an extra set of eyes on the street. I can't really think of a downside. Please support ADUs. Thanks, Travis Merrigan Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 50 of 61 From: Jakob Lunden [mailto:jakobrlunden@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:39 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: PRO Proposed ADU Regulations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the proposed changes to ADU regulations. My boyfriend and I bought and restored two historic homes on one lot in the Union Hill neighborhood neighborhood. Our tenants in the backyard cottage now enjoy a lovely, efficient, stand-alone home for reasonable rent ($1,100) with water/sewer/garbage paid. If allowed a third unit, we'd contemplate finishing off a basement suite and renting it out, too. There's always ample street parking and it's an easy walking/biking/transit distance to downtown, the yard and the ferries. Attached and detached ADUs have always been a part of Bremerton's housing stock. Bremerton has many a backyard cottage or house with basement suite, sometimes even on the same lot! The proposed changes will bring about more affordable housing, and incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to help solve our housing crunch. The extra income from ADUs can help homebuyers qualify for a mortgage, make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. An owner-occupancy requirement doesn't do anything to create more affordable housing stock, and it's ill-suited to a town where military members and DOD employees are often on the move. I understand concerns about slumlords, but that can be managed through code enforcement. It's not like run-down old housing stock can magically multiply - any newly-created units would need to go through permitting anyhow, so they'd be safe, and, well, new. I look forward to Wednesday's meeting and hope the council says yes to more affordable housing options! Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 51 of 61 From: Claire Trettin [mailto:claire.trettin@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:12 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: William Trettin <wctrettin@gmail.com> Subject: Bremerton ADU Proposed Changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bremerton city council, My partner and I write to you to express our support for the proposed ADU changes to Bremerton's code. Adding housing via ADUs will allow Bremerton to grow in a responsible manner. As Seattle and the PNW region continue to grow in population, we should expect and plan for Bremerton to grow as well. Adding more units within occupied land will allow us to grow without expanding Bremerton's footprint. With increased density, more residents will be able to walk to work, and our metro systems will be more efficient. We can't pretend that Bremerton can stay single-family-residential forever. This region will only become more incorporated with Seattle and the surrounding economy. Without responsible city planning, we will continue to see ballooning housing prices (only adding to our homelessness crisis) and congested streets. I hope you all agree that this proposal represents a first step towards a new urban approach to Bremerton's design. Please reply for any further clarification on our stance. Claire and William Trettin Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 52 of 61 From: David Albright [mailto:david@dalbright.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:38 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: In Favor of the ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi City Council - please vote in favor of the proposed ADU Changes today! They'll provide more good quality, affordable housing in our neighborhoods without the need to tear down entire blocks for apartments. I am in the process of buying a home in Bremerton and hope to be able to build an ADU for my parents to live in one day, to have them close and to help care for them as they age. David -- DALBRIGHT.COM | @DALBRIGHT 206.498.7904 | david@dalbright.com Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 53 of 61 From: D MA [mailto:tnystrmg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:21 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU changes 2020-2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I just wanted to say that I am extremely excited to see the changes to the current ADU regulations! As our family ages we want to be prepared to transition our elderly into a place that still rockers them independence but still have us close enough for peace of mind!!! I look forward to seeing the regulations ease up enough to make this possible for a lot of families in our situation!! Not to mention as our little city continues to grow this will offer possible dwelling units to young people in college or couples just starting out. Maximize the potential of properties that can support this type of situation and it would greatly benefit everyone all the way around!!! Respectfully, Donna Archer Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 54 of 61 From: Roy Runyon [mailto:sealance2449@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:43 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5410 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 of the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmembers, Although not perfect, I support passage of Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commision to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” As a seventeen year resident, taxpayer, property owner and former elected official, I take special interest in the potential of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to positively affect the housing situation in Bremerton. In 2017, after I left the City Council and during my medical incapacitation, the Council under Eric Younger's control, amended the BMC to make the ADU code more draconian rather than reduce restrictions on ADU development. I commend the Planning Commission and city staff for their efforts this past year to work through the issues regarding the ADU code, analyze other city's ADU rules, solicit and consider input from citizens and concerned groups and craft proposed amendments to the BMC that would achieve the following: 1) reduces the cost of development of ADUs; 2) allows for an increase in housing stock WITHOUT direct taxpayer subsidy; 3) reduces the need to create additional impervious surface by reducing the parking requirement; 4) brings ADU design criteria into conformity with design criteria for single family residential development; 5) brings the BMC into conformity with "Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1923, which provides incentivized recommendations for jurisdictions to amend local zoning codes relating to housing, with one recommendation concerning ADU standards" and 6) helps restore and preserve private property rights. I call on all of you to vote to pass Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” --Roy Runyon, Taxpayer, property owner and voter 360-440-0620 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 55 of 61 From: Devin Gombosky <Devin@kitsaprealtor.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 2:55 PM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Allison, My apologies for the late notice but the Kitsap County Association of Realtors would like to officially support the amendment to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). We are not wishing to testify as our comments would largely echo those of Russ Shiplet from the Kitsap Building Association. I will be observing tonight’s meeting and anxiously awaiting a decision from council. Best, DEVIN GOMBOSKY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR KITSAP COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® C: 360-742-2676 E: devin@kitsaprealtor.org W: kitsaprealtor.org A: 3689 Munson Street, Silverdale WA 98383 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 56 of 61 From: Evan Deans [mailto:evan.j.deans@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 4:24 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: YES on proposed ADU Regulations! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the proposed changes to ADU regulations. I own two historic homes on a single lot in the Union Hill neighborhood. Our tenants in the backyard cottage now enjoy a lovely, efficient, stand-alone home for reasonable rent ($1,100) with water/sewer/garbage paid. If allowed a third unit, we'd contemplate adding a basement suite to renting as well. Street parking is ample and it's an easy walking/biking/transit distance to downtown, the yard and the ferries. Attached and detached ADUs have long been a significant component of Bremerton housing stock, with backyard cottages and basement suites. The proposed changes will provide much needed affordable housing. It incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to contribute to solving the dire need for more housing options. The extra income from ADUs helps homebuyers qualify for a mortgage (myself included), make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. An owner-occupancy requirement doesn't do anything to create more affordable housing stock, and it's ill-suited to a town where military members and DOD employees are often on the move. concerns about shady landlords and ill managed rentals can be managed through code enforcement. New housing units will need to go through permitting, so they'd be safe, and... new. I look forward to Wednesday's meeting and hope the council says yes to more affordable housing options! Regards, -Evan Deans Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 57 of 61 -----Original Message----- From: Anna Mockler <upstream@riseup.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 5:25 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU Code Change CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilors, There are six main code changes being considered by Council: I disagree with the addition of a second ADU, and vehemently object to permitting owners to live off site. 1. Number of ADUs per property — 1 required by State law, 2 proposed by City. I disagree with the addition of a second ADU on a property. This changes the whole character of the property and its neighborhood, in the same way that a date is changed by the addition of a little brother, or any one-on-one is changed by adding a third person. Most Bremerton lots would have a very tough time squeezing in 2,000 square feet of additional building (see #2, below). Were this two tiny houses, I would be 100% on board, but 1,000 square feet is a 3-bedroom house. Two of those is a whole lot of extra to tack on. 2. ADU size — see above. If we adhere to HB1923, any lot with two ADUs of 1000 sf or more will have virtually no green space, as well as increased traffic & parking. Sewage from this much square footage will put additional strain on an aging system designed primarily for single-family homes. 3. ADU design — I have no comment on this. 4. ADU parking. — This doesn’t make sense to me, as so much of Bremerton parking is on-street. I would like clarification. Is the proposal to create off-street parking for the ADU? In 2019, was it not the code policy to require 2 off-street parking spaces for the main house, and 1-2 spaces for the ADU? 5. ADU Owner required to live on-site — proposed change to owner no longer required to live onsite. I disagree with this very strongly indeed. When the landlord lives on-site, tensions between renters & owners can be quickly resolved, and may never even escalate to conflict, since owners are interested in maintaining property value AND in maintaining decent relations among neighbors. These incentives disappear once the owner leaves the site. What the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over. Why should you care about your neighborhood if you don’t live in it? Many, many Bremertonians are interested in having an ADU — adding a story or building a separate structure. Every one I’ve spoken to is interested in having a small rental that they can oversee, or having a separate space for extended family members. Once you permit owners to live off-site, you pull out the essential element that ensures neighborhood continuity. It’s already tough enough to keep neighborhoods whole in a city where so many residents are here between tours or contracts, or only using Bremerton as a bedroom community. Removing homeowners and replacing them at random with multiple renters is just a bad, very bad, not good idea. 6. Nonconforming ADUs — This sounds like each existing structure will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Is that correct? If so, that sounds fine to me. Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 58 of 61 Bremerton needs housing badly. It needed it badly before the pandemic; now, with so many unemployed or seriously under-employed, housing is a vital necessity. I myself think that the $215,000 spent on five brand-new police vehicles would have been better spent on rental assistance, or housing creation. However, I digress. I am a strong proponent of ADUs. Permitting one ADU per lot would gradually and certainly change a neighborhood’s density and character over time. Permitting two ADUs would change neighborhoods abruptly and drastically, especially when combined with the owners’ absence. There may be absentee landlords of multiple low-income properties who care for their properties and their renters as if they lived on the properties in question. I, however, have yet to meet such landlords. There were a number of proposals presented in spring/summer 2019 for increasing housing in our town, like the cottage / townhouse style on view at 15th and Snyder, or adding a story to some of the many duplexes around town, or the townhouses built at 15th and Lafayette. All of these are well-designed and serve as infill. There are also many empty commercial structures in Bremerton. These could be converted to housing and would certainly have plenty of parking! Tiny house villages on these extensive parking lots would be temporary structures that could ease the transition while new housing policies are calmly debated, thoughtfully designed, and implemented with plenty of oversight. Having a roof overhead is a certain good. I truly hate to disagree with the Mayor, and with many housing advocates, but I think that preserving the connections among the people in our neighborhoods will keep all of us safer, and more engaged with the well-being of our town. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments, and may we find a way to house our fellow human beings quickly, surely, and warmly. Yours, Anna Mockler 1123 N Cambrian Ave Bremerton WA 98312 360.509.8280 upstream@riseup.net Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 59 of 61 -----Original Message----- From: sggriffith@fastmail.com <sggriffith@fastmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:20 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU opinion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Council Members, I am writing to express my support of easing the restrictions on ADUs in the City of Bremerton so that more can be built. I lived in two ADUs in Houston, Texas, and they were economical and decent dwellings. One was an apartment built on the back of an existing house, and the other was a garage apartment. The garage apartment was preferable, I thought, because I had privacy. In the other situation, I frequently had contact with the homeowners. This can be ok, but it's better to be able to come and go without landlord-tenant interaction, as a general rule. So in my opinion, some privacy regarding tenant exit and egress should be included in the design of the dwelling. I have seen a lot of ADUs in other cities. They are generally quaint, even picturesque. Landscaping helps unify the dwelling into the lot and the neighborhood. If we build a lot of ADUs in Bremerton, there will be a need for more cafes and stores -- not a bad thing! Further, we will be able to absorb a few more working people to fit in to what has been traditionally a working class city. Navy people can rent an ADU and become part of the culture. I rent out a room in my home, since I no longer use my second floor. This has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I think other citizens of Bremerton will benefit from the opportunity for ADUs. Please let me know if you have any questions about my thoughts on this subject. Suzanne Griffith 350 Hill Ct. (District 1) -- sggriffith@fastmail.com Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 60 of 61 From: chris@barnesnw.com <chris@barnesnw.com> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:38 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Message for District 4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the email with the proposal details and the opportunity to provide input via email. I would like to understand the purpose of the new ADU rules? Is it to provide denser housing? More housing? Low income housing? Homeless housing? With the limited public transit in Bremerton most people are still using cars. The streets in union hill at least are crowed with cars. At times our recycle has not been collected due to cars making the street too narrow for the trucks to pass. I am in favor of providing more low and homeless housing but no in allowing landlords to add that many more families with cars. You cannot assume each ADU will add just one car. Parking is really my only concern with this proposal. I am fine with making more housing available especially low income. But adding more cars to the streets is really not an option. there is no where to place them. Could we modify the proposal to restrict the number of cars at each tax parcel no matter how many ADUs? Or perhaps to a survey of how many street parking spaces are available on each block and limit the number of additional ADUs to the number of spaces? It would be great to hear the main issues driving these changes. Thanks! Chris Barnes KF7ZEI chris@barnesnw.com 206-503-4597 Attachment 2 - Public Comments for ADUs Page 61 of 61 Public Hearing Zoning Code Amendment TWO ADUs Gather feedback for Council’s decision PRESENTER: ALLISON SATTER, DCD 2/17/2021 Council is seeking feedback Current Ordinance has Planning Commission’s Recommendation Allow 2 ADUs, which requirement for parking for 2nd ADU. Optional Items to Shape Adoption Ordinance 1.Limit location 2.Owner Occupancy for 2nd ADU 3.Affordability Component 4.Parking, when near transit 5.Short-Term Rental Next public meeting tentatively on Wed. March 3rd, 2021 Why is the City want ADUs? The City is having a housing shortage This would allow more options for housing in the City ADUs add to housing stock in existing neighborhoods Allows access to more existing City resources (parks, sidewalks, and infrastructure) Cost less on City for expansion in services ADUs are typically more affordable as they are smaller in square footage PC Recommendation/ Current Draft Ordinance Planning Commission recommendation: Allow two ADUs on any single-family lot Currently one ADU allowed Require an additional parking space for the 2nd ADU What will Two ADUs look like onsite Only Single-family home lots can have ADU(s) City will likely see more Attached ADU through interior remodeling Conversion of existing space (such as basement of upper floor) Two attached ADUs are unlikely for existing homes due to fire sprinklers $$ Detached ADU Must meet lot coverage, setbacks, height and any other applicable City standards Not all lots will be able to fit a detached ADU onsite Larger lots may be able to place two detached ADUs Not all property owner's desire to place ADU and the code doesn’t require it Optional Amendments to Ordinance Optional Topic #1: Limit Location for 2nd ADU Should the City limit the placement of properties with two ADUs to a certain area of the City? Optional Proposal –only allow two ADUs if within 500’from City Centers and commercial and institutional zones Model after existing code that allows duplexes and triplexes What does that look like: Maps provided in Staff Report 500’ buffer shown with dash marks Part of West Bremerton Zoning Map East Bremerton Zoning Map Optional Topic #2: Require Owner-Occupancy for 2nd ADU Should the property owner live onsite when two ADUs are proposed? The property owner could live in the Single -family home or either of the ADUs In December 2020, Council removed this requirement for the 1st ADU Optional Topic #3: Affordability Component Per State Law, if local zoning code require affordable housing requirements then the following applies: 50-years is period of affordability ADU is rented to an income eligible household and charge no more than 30% of household income in rent City of Seattle have not had any participants to this program Memo outlines amendments to Ord if Affordability is desired Optional Topic #4: Parking for 2nd ADU Proposed Ordinance requires 1 parking space for 2nd ADU Question –Eliminate need for additional parking space if near transit? State Law requires “no additional parking for ADU when within 1,500 feet (¼ mile or ten-minute walk) to Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit” Optional amendment to Ord if revision to the Parking standard is desired A second ADU located onsite shall provide one additional off-street parking space unless the property is located within 1,500 feet of City Center or commercial zones. This proposal would assume that 2nd ADUs would be allowed Citywide If Optional Topic #1 (limit 2nd ADU to be 500’ from commercial center) is desired AND a parking reduction is desired for 2nd ADU, then this code should be written to not require an additional parking space. Optional Topic #5: Short Term Rental Can the City limit ADUs from being short-term rentals? Yes Optional Amendment (similar to Poulsbo) An ADU may not be used as a short-term rental and must be rented for a minimum of ninety days or more. Receiving Feedback Current Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission’s Recommendation –two ADUs with requirement for one additional off-street parking space Ordinance Amendments? Council is receiving feedback of topics that could shape Ord: 1.Limit locations where 2nd ADUs can be located 2.Require Owner to live onsite if property has two ADUs 3.Affordability Requirement for 2nd ADU 4.Allow parking reduction for ADU if near City Center or Commercial/Institutional zone 5.Limit ADU from being short-term rental ? Public Comments Received for the February 17th Public Hearing As of 3PM 2.17.21 Commenter Council District & Street Main Proposal: Permitting TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Code Revision 1: Limiting 2nd ADU Locations Code Revision 2: Requiring 2nd ADU Owner- Occupancy Code Revision 3: Requiring 2nd ADU affordability Code Revision 4: Not requiring parking for 2nd ADU Code Revision 5: Prohibit ADUs as short-term rentals Other Comments Buck District 6 N Wycoff OPPOSES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A McDonald District 2 Marlow OPPOSES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Runyon District 6 Snyder SUPPORTS N/A N/A OPPOSES SUPPORTS N/A Digby Not provided N/A SUPPORTS (States that ADUs should be located away from waterways) SUPPORTS SUPPORTS POSSIBLY SUPPORTS SUPPORTS . Tan = Generally opposed. Green = Generally supportive. N/A or Unclear means they did not provide comments on the item, or the comment was unclear. Opposes means they oppose the revision as written. Supports means they support the revision as written. Page 1 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street Main Proposal: Permitting TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Code Revision 1: Limiting 2nd ADU Locations Code Revision 2: Requiring 2nd ADU Owner- Occupancy Code Revision 3: Requiring 2nd ADU affordability Code Revision 4: Not requiring parking for 2nd ADU Code Revision 5: Prohibit ADUs as short-term rentals Other Comments Halverson District 7 Shorewood N/A N/A N/A N/A Unclear. States that the City Council should consider parking demands in affected neighborhoods like Shorewood Drive. N/A Gray Not provided SUPPORTS N/A N/A SUPPORTS SUPPORTS OPPOSES Walthall District 4 Pennsylvania SUPPORTS N/A POSSIBLY SUPPORTS OPPOSES SUPPORTS OPPOSES Suggests less restrictions for ADUs. States that the best solution to affordability is increasing the supply of housing. Page 2 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street Main Proposal: Permitting TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Code Revision 1: Limiting 2nd ADU Locations Code Revision 2: Requiring 2nd ADU Owner- Occupancy Code Revision 3: Requiring 2nd ADU affordability Code Revision 4: Not requiring parking for 2nd ADU Code Revision 5: Prohibit ADUs as short-term rentals Other Comments King District 3 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Way SUPPORTS OPPOSES OPPOSES N/A N/A SUPPORTS (Would like to see broader restrictions on the use of housing as short-term rentals) States that the 60% development coverage limitation should be increased to allow for more development coverage Sundberg District 4 Burwell SUPPORTS OPPOSES OPPOSES SUPPORTS (with caveats for family) SUPPORTS OPPOSES Woolston District 6 Marine Drive N/A SUPPORTS (No 2nd ADUs on properties with septic systems, or with lot size considerations) SUPPORTS Unclear, supports affordable housing SUPPORTS (if street parking is adequate) SUPPORTS Page 3 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street Main Proposal: Permitting TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Code Revision 1: Limiting 2nd ADU Locations Code Revision 2: Requiring 2nd ADU Owner- Occupancy Code Revision 3: Requiring 2nd ADU affordability Code Revision 4: Not requiring parking for 2nd ADU Code Revision 5: Prohibit ADUs as short-term rentals Other Comments Manning District 2 Sanders OPPOSES SUPPORTS SUPPORTS SUPPORTS (with tracking and enforcement) OPPOSES SUPPORTS Lunden District 2 Callahan SUPPORTS OPPOSES OPPOSES SUPPORTS (an affordability requirement, states that ADUs are inherently affordable) SUPPORTS OPPOSES Adams District 3 Not provided SUPPORTS OPPOSES Neutral / Potentially Support Neutral / Potentially Support OPPOSES SUPPORTS Would like all dwelling units in residential zones to be prohibited from use as short-term rentals. Page 4 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Runyon 6 Snyder Ave SUPPORTS Submitted a draft code revision for ADUs. King 3 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way N/A Presented idea of allowing interested parties to purchase garages and convert them to ADUs. Kimble Not City resident. SUPPORTS Shared Kitsap Sun article, “ADU Beauty Pageant”. Stated County should follow suit with City’s ADU proposals. Walthall 4 Pennsylvania Ave SUPPORTS Shared that the largest barrier for him in creating an ADU in his basement is the parking requirement. Sharman 2 E 18th Street N/A States that the City is experiencing a housing crisis of affordability, supports the new proposals for ADUs. Hopes that the City will reconsider how RV’s are defined. Kitsap Building Association (Organization Comment, no specific district) SUPPORTS Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 5 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Manning 2 Sanders Ave OPPOSES Rich 6 N Callow SUPPORTS States that they fully support relaxing ADU regulations. Digby Not provided. OPPOSES States the opinion that Bremerton does not have the ability to accommodate additional hardscape with the current capacity of storm water runoff containment. Also states that construction removes vegetation, which is bad for the environment. Halverson 7 Shorewood Dr/Madrona Point Dr OPPOSES States that they are opposed to the ‘amendment proposed below as it regards the Shorewood drive/Madrona Point neighborhoods.’ Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 6 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Broussard Not City resident. SUPPORTS States that they became homeless after fleeing their home. Would like the opportunity to live in Kitsap County again in a tiny home. Grant 7 Madrona Point Dr OPPOSES States that there are parking issues on Madrona Point. McDonald 3 Marlow Ave OPPOSES Supports postponing the changes to ADU code. Lewis 2 Sanders Ave OPPOSES Is against allowing ‘single resident/family lots to be turned into multi structure lots’. Believes this only helps big building companies. Recommends the City focus energy on repairing neighborhood roads in East Bremerton or adding sidewalks. Greising 7 Shorewood Dr OPPOSES Believes too many rentals will bring down the quality of a neighborhood. Believes this proposal will ‘turn Bremerton into a third class junker city.’ Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 7 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Berbells 7 Shorewood Dr OPPOSES States Bremerton is nicer to live in than Seattle because neighborhoods are less crowded. Believes overcrowding leads to more stress and crime, as well as noise and street traffic. Believes the City should use outlying areas for more homes, or possibly have homes in the County. Adams 5 7th St. N/A Supports ADUs. Does not believe they will solve the issue of affordable housing. Provided further comments about other suggestions for the City Council. Younger 7 Madrona Point Dr. N/A Believes the city should investigate other forms of providing affordable housing. Believes the notification of this proposal was not transparent. Morris Not provided. SUPPORTS Requests that the City Council lift ordinances on ADUs. Believes ADUs help elderly people, young people, and low-income people afford safe and sanitary housing. States that the City needs to implement all the housing situations available, especially with the ongoing pandemic. Buck 6 N. Wycoff Ave OPPOSES States that ‘I've had a few good renter/neighbors, but the vast majority have not been good neighbors.’ Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 8 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Sundberg Not provided. SUPPORTS Torrez-Riley 4 5th St SUPPORTS States that they ‘love this small urban center [of the Union Hill neighborhood] and the affordable housing options available through ADUs’. Gray Not provided. N/A States that ‘ADUs are a great way to expand housing’ and ‘ADUs are needed and wanted.’ Reynolds 3 Not provided. SUPPORTS States that they ‘cannot be more happy that the City Council is meeting to discuss the current requirements.’ Requests that the City Council review the requirement that a single-family residence have two paved parking spaces prior to adding an ADU. Merrigan 4 Naval Ave SUPPORTS States that they are ‘writing in support of ADUs. Our region is changing, lots of people are moving to Bremerton. We need lots of options to house them’. Lunden 2 Callahan Dr SUPPORTS Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 9 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Trettin 4 8th St/14th St SUPPORTS States that ‘adding housing via ADUs will allow Bremerton to grow in a responsible manner.’ Albright Not provided SUPPORTS States that ADUs will ‘provide more good quality, affordable housing in our neighborhoods without the need to tear down entire blocks for apartments.’ Hopes to use an ADU to someday house elderly family members. Archer Not provided. SUPPORTS States that they are extremely excited about the proposal. States: “Maximize the potential of properties that can support this type of situation and it would greatly benefit everyone all the way around.” Runyon (2nd Comment) 6 Snyder Ave SUPPORTS States that the proposal “allows for an increase in housing stock WITHOUT direct taxpayer subsidy”. States that the proposal brings the City into conformance with Legislature passed bill 1923. States that the proposal “helps restore and preserve private property rights.” Kitsap County Association of Realtors (Organization Comment, no specific district) SUPPORTS Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 10 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Deans 4 SUPPORTS States that if proposal were implemented, they would add a basement ADU to their property in addition to their backyard cottage. States: “The proposed changes will provide much needed affordable housing. It incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to contribute to solving the dire need for more housing options. The extra income from ADUs helps homebuyers qualify for a mortgage (myself included), make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. Mockler 6 OPPOSES States that a 2nd ADU changes the character of a property and neighborhood. States that Bremerton needs housing badly, and provides several other possible solutions not relating to ADUs. Griffith (Not received in time to be included in Public Hearing packet) 1 SUPPORTS States that with more housing will come more shops as well, which they state would be good. States: “I have seen a lot of ADUs in other cities. They are generally quaint, even picturesque. Landscaping helps unify the dwelling into the lot and the neighborhood.” And: “I rent out a room in my home, since I no longer use my second floor. This has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I think other citizens of Bremerton will benefit from the opportunity for ADUs.” Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 11 of 12 2/17/2021 Commenter Council District & Street PROPOSAL: Allowing TWO (2) ADUs (in general) Other comments: Barnes 4 N/A States: “Parking is really my only concern with this proposal. I am fine with making more housing available especially low income.” Public Comments Received for December 16th Public Hearing While these comments were fully incorporated into the previous matrix, for simplicity only comments specifically related to the current proposal are shown here. Page 12 of 12 2/17/2021 From: Buck, Patrick G CIV USN NAVSHIPYDIMF PGS WA (USA) [mailto:patrick.buck@navy.mil] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 11:18 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU's Feb 17 meeting City Council, Received an e-mail from Isaac Gloor about the upcoming ADU meeting. So, basically what I get out of it is you want more tax money and don't care about the homeowners. From reading the proposal you want to make the property not be owner occupied. So homeowners get to deal with absentee landlords. Got it. You want to make 2 ADU's per property as opposed to the current one. Let's turn a single family neighborhood into a high density neighborhood, once again sticking it to the people who bought a home in a low density neighborhood who now get to deal with renters who have no skin in the game and don't care about the property or their neighbors. Got it. You want to make it so no parking is required for the first ADU, so homeowners get to deal with streets crammed with cars from people who do not own the property and who do not care about the homeowners that have to deal with the increased traffic and streets looking like a used car lot. Got that too. To reiterate from my previous e-mail on this topic. I've lived in a neighborhood, Callow North of 15th, that has several ADU's and I have a house with an ADU right next to me. Streets are crammed with cars, my trash didn't get picked up for 3 weeks due to renters blocking the street, parking is a constant struggle. With IMPARK not working the weekend or nights when you have a parking issue you're basically out of luck. As you can read, I am not a fan of your proposals. I didn't buy my single family house to have the neighborhood I live in turned into an even more crowded multi-family neighborhood. Patrick Buck 1910 N. Wycoff Ave Bremerton From: City Council Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 4:24 PM To: Jim McDonald <jimmc90@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - Delay Change to allow 2 ADUs per lot (Jim McDonald) Good afternoon, Jim. This is to acknowledge that your letter was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy was also shared with Mayor Wheeler and appropriate DCD staff; and included as a part of the record. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Sincerely, Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us www.BremertonWA.gov From: Jim McDonald <jimmc90@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:24 PM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 2 ADUs per lot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Given the fact that the City just amended the Codes to allow one ADU per lot, it makes sense to see how effective that is before allowing two, We don't know parking impacts per neighborhood and we don't know what rents will look like next year after so many apartment projects are brought on line. There are huge developments that will be coming on line in 2021 and early 2022 that will add hundreds if not a thousand of units to our housing market: Think of the Bay Vista Area (over 200 units); the developments behind WINCO (320 units) and Goodwill (200 more est.); the Marina Square development (280 units); the Burwell Apartments that are nearly complete (56 units); the permitted units across from Bay Bowl; the Eight Street and Warren Avenue units; the 25 units permitted at the corner of Burwell and Warren; the 22 units permitted on 5th Street; and the 70 plus units permitted by Kitsap Mental Health. All these additional units plus the recently passed ADU allowances, creates a huge increase in housing. It would be prudent to wait 12 to 18 months to see what all this development has on the affordability of housing costs. I suspect it will provide a downward pressure on rents and increase affordability. Through basic management principles, you should wait to see what happens based on the current ADU ordinance changes before changing things again. Otherwise, how will you know if the first change was effective; causes additional problems; or needs any modifications? Our City has struggled with rental problems for years. It only takes one bad rental problem to make a neighborhood unsafe and undesirable (We have lived through it and moved because of it). There are lots of things in motion right now. The prudent step would be to slow down and to measure what is taking place instead of rushing into changes that can affect our neighborhoods for decades. R, Jim & Judy McDonald From: City Council Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3:39 PM To: Roy Runyon <sealance2449@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Letter - Ordinance allowing 2 ADUs (Roy Runyon) Roy, This is to acknowledge that your letter was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy was also shared with Mayor Wheeler and appropriate DCD staff; and included as a part of the record. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Roy Runyon <sealance2449@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3:10 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City.council@bremerton.ci.wa.us Subject: Agenda item A14 : Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance amending Section 20.46.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to allow two Accessory Dwelling Units per Single Family Lot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern, I SUPPORT allowing up to two ADUs on a residential lot. I OPPOSE requiring an additional off-street parking space for the second ADU. A dedicated parking spot for the occupant(s) of an ADU should be treated as an amenity. Leave the decision to provide a parking spot for a second ADU up to the property owner. I OPPOSE imposing affordability criteria and creation of an accompanying bureaucratic process and structure as a condition of allowing a second ADU on a lot. Please explain where the Bremerton Municipal Code requires that any single family residence, built on a privately-owned lot, must be "affordable." I SUPPORT the creation of a requirement that all members of the Bremerton City Council and the occupant of the mayor's office demonstrate knowledge and understanding of microeconomics, specifically how the principle of supply and demand affects the price of goods and services. Regards, From:Susan Digby To:Isaac Gloor; City Council; deborah woolston Subject:ADUs Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 5:52:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I would like to know how the City of Bremerton plans to ensure that the increase in allowable ADUs will provide much needed housing for local people rather than providing short-term vacation rentals to out of town people. The latter usage serves to enrich local property owners but does nothing to alleviate the local housing shortage. It is my observation that within Bremerton we are currently losing housing to holiday rentals. This may be a separate issue from the ADU ordinance but I think it is one that that needs attention as part of Bremerton's housing strategy. Respectfully, Susan Digby From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 7:58 AM To: Susan Digby <digbycarsey@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Concern - ADUs (Susan Digby) Ms. Digby, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Susan Digby <digbycarsey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:16 AM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Additional input to the ADU discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for allowing additional input. Additional feedback on the following points: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); Comment: I think second ADUs need to be sited some distance from Puget Sound waters to reduce lawn and automobile pollutants from rapidly entering the waters. Puget Sound is already heavily impacted by development. It would seem to make sense to add development in sites away from the water rather than on narrow points of land that are surrounded by Sound waters. While on this topic, I am concerned that our waste water plant is operating over capacity during rainfall events; we have frequent sewage spi lls into the Sound. I think before more development projects are undertaken there needs to be an examination of the impact of development on waste water control. [Linked to that I feel the city needs to monitor salmon studies on the ingredient in car tires (6PPD-quinone) such that when best-practices for handling road runoff are developed we can be part of the solution. That is if the chemical is not banned from tires. (The waste water plant is unlikely to be able to remove the chemical; ideally street runoff needs to be handled separately and directed away from fast entry into the Sound)] 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; Comment: I think this is a really important requirement. Locally we have had problems with rental houses where the owners are distant and hence unable to oversee their properties or possibly are less interested in the properties because they are not emotionally invested in the city. 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; Comment: Agreed. Although I do not know how these requirements are set 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; Comment: I think this should only be allowed if the street is wide enough to accommodate cars without blocking traffic, impeding lines of sight or displacing pedestrians from walkways. 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals Comment: Because we already have many ADUs and whole houses that are short term rentals it would seem that either limiting the percentage of ADUs that can be used as short term rentals or prohibiting them entirely is a good idea. Thank you for soliciting my opinion, Susan Digby 16 February 2021 From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:25 AM To: Kevin Walthall <kswalthall@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Letter - Proposed 2nd ADU (Kevin Walthall) Mr. Walthall, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Kevin Walthall <kswalthall@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:06 PM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Thanks for the update, I will not be able to attend. My comments are attached. Thank you! On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 4:17 PM Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote: Dear Interested Parties, Update – This upcoming public hearing regarding code amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will be receiving public comments, but a Council decision will come at a future hearing (tentative date of March 3, 2021). You are a designated interested party due to your previous interest in this topic, and the City would like to invite you to provide comments and attend the meeting. Attached to this email is the Staff Memo that provides details about this proposal, which would permit up to two (2) ADUs per parcel. Currently, code limits each parcel to one (1) ADU. Under this proposal, if a 2nd ADU were to be added to a property, an additional parking space would need to be provided for it. The City Council would like additional feedback regarding other potential code changes for ADUs, including: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals Once published, the full council packet, containing documentation regarding each item the Council will discuss, will be located here: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet. You may submit comments to me at Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us, or to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us (I will forward all comments to the City Council). All written comments must be received prior to 5:00PM on the date of the meeting. You may provide oral testimony at the meeting. The meeting details are below: CITY OF BREMERTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding an ordinance to amend the Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, to modify the maximum number of permitted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) per parcel from one (1) to two (2). The City of Bremerton is the applicant for this action. DATE: February 17, 2021 TIME: 5:30PM This meeting is to be held remotely to help reduce the spread of the COVID-19. To join the meeting, please visit http://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings to get the log in information. Meeting information, including the agenda, may not appear until closer to the meeting date. All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on these items. The Department of Community Development will receive and record written comments and other exhibits on the above items prior to the close of business on the date of the hearing. If you have questions, call Isaac Gloor at (360) 473-5281 or Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us Dear Bremerton City Council, Thank you for your deliberation on the issue of the second ADU, and thank you for hearing public comment with open minds. (Note: I reference city-sponsored Affordability with a capital “A,” and housing that is generally or naturally affordable without government programming with a lowercase “a.”) I am most concerned with two topics: local ownership and affordability for renters. With both concerns in mind, I ask that we err on the side of liberality. If we require anything in exchange for the right to build a second ADU, it should only be requiring the owner to live on the property. I think parking should be the homeowner ’s choice.I also oppose restricting short-term rentals. It seems almost all city-sponsored affordability initiatives are unsuccessful, denying both the long-term market solution, and the short-term government aid solution. ADUs are, by nature, going to be more affordable than units in new apartment complexes (though not capped at 80% of average market rate,or whatever formula determines “capital-A Affordable”). I’m looking at converting my basement.It has few windows and low ceilings. I have no misconceptions that my basement will be able to compete with even an average above-ground apartment, so I’m running the numbers with the space priced accordingly. Somebody is going to get to rent a brand-new studio apartment for around $1.59 per square foot instead of the city average of around $2 per square foot, because despite being a quality space, it is still a basement and will be priced as such. That will be a huge boon for my family, and a boon for the renter as well - and it’s not because of any government program, it’s because I have a realistic assessment of what my ADU will be. The only sustainable, natural solution to affordability is supply, so again, I believe it’s intrinsically true that the more units we permit, the better it will be for affordability. My chief hesitation with allowing a second ADU is that we could invite larger developers and flippers to purchase dilapidated properties and convert them to three units, thus consolidating property in just a few hands and incentivizing local homeowners to sell instead of build themselves. To be clear, this is a very minor concern in comparison to the scope of the housing shortage we currently face. It’s based on conjecture - there’s a good chance there’s nothing to it. It could also be mitigated. What if the city (perhaps in conjunction with the KBA) became a resource for helping the lay homeowner understand the design, permitting, construction,and landlord process? What if we provided data that helped homeowners make informed decisions about the going rates of different kinds of housing? What if the city marketed the payoffs of building an ADU? What if the city made an effort to demystify the entire process so local homeowners felt confident they could convert their home equity to income that will pay indefinite dividends? It wouldn’t be cheap, but given what I’ve learned about Affordability incentives,it might be the easiest and most effective solution. If we ever chose to take advantage of the state’s offer to help legalize duplexes near mass transit, the same system could be used to ensure those duplexes are also built by locals and not far-away management companies. I have begun this process myself. I started by getting estimates from builders, and contacting city permitting specialists to help me understand the process. I needed to contact those specialists because frankly, the city’s online permitting portal makes no sense. I would like to think I’m fairly competent at understanding legal and construction language, but it’s just a baffling, user-unfriendly online experience. I think the biggest barrier to local homeowners building ADUs is probably uncertainty about the process. It’s hard to even get a clear idea of how much permitting costs. Bremerton’s online presence has made strides in recent years, but this is an area where its usability could really have an incredible impact on the built environment and economic prosperity of the city. The absolute worst-case scenario is that we significantly limit the number of new ADUs constructed and continue with the same destructive policies that have given us a housing shortage in the first place. A far distant second-worst-case scenario is that we build many ADUs, but Bremerton property gets bought up by developers and property management groups. The solution to that, I think, is reaching out to homeowners and letting them know how easy and rewarding it is to build ADUs so that, wherever possible,multiple-ADU properties are profiting local individuals and revitalizing the local economy.If a marketing push coupled with a new permitting portal isn’t possible, then as an alternative I think we should simply require owner occupancy. Thank you. Sincerely, Kevin Walthall Pennsylvania Avenue From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:08 AM To: deborah woolston <deborah.woolston@icloud.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Deborah Woolston) Ms. Woolston, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: deborah woolston <deborah.woolston@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:37 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Citizen Comments: allowing 2nd ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Here are my comments on the proposed changes:  Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City: only if the sewer is adequate to handle additional use; no 2nd ADUs on parcels with septic systems.  Instead of a blanket approval of ADUs in certain areas of the city, I propose that the approval of any ADU be based on the size of the parcel since they vary in size.  Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site: absolutely yes  Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met: though I don’t know the details, I support affordable housing.  Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements: only if street parking is safe, adequate and doesn’t take parking away from existing residents.  Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals: provisional yes.  The city needs to enact regulations about SRTs including: how often and how long the rentals are allowed, a business license, payment of lodging tax, regular inspections for health and safety. Bad ADU history lives on in Bremerton in the form of the dozens of housing units that were thrown up in backyards during WWII to house the thousands of people flooding into the city for work. They are ugly, perhaps unsafe and unhealthy, and clearly a stain on the city. Please don’t create a second edition of WWII-era ADUs which have outlived their usefulness. Deborah Woolston, Marine Drive From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:04 AM To: graydani03@gmail.com Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Danessa Gray) Ms. Gray, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:12 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Good morning, Below is a citizen comment for the upcoming public hearing on Wednesday relating to ADUs. Thank you, Isaac Gloor (he/him) Planner City of Bremerton From: Danessa Gray <graydani03@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 9:01 AM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Isaac, Thank you for sending me an email for consideration of the ADU consideration for Bremerton. The City Council would like additional feedback regarding other potential code changes for ADUs, including: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals I think the best option is a combination of 3 & 4.  Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met  Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements Additionally- I do not think it is in Bremerton's best interest to limit short term rentals at this time. Thank you Danessa Gray 206-707-1340 On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 4:17 PM Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote: Dear Interested Parties, Update – This upcoming public hearing regarding code amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will be receiving public comments, but a Council decision will come at a future hearing (tentative date of March 3, 2021). You are a designated interested party due to your previous interest in this topic, and the City would like to invite you to provide comments and attend the meeting. Attached to this email is the Staff Memo that provides details about this proposal, which would permit up to two (2) ADUs per parcel. Currently, code limits each parcel to one (1) ADU. Under this proposal, if a 2nd ADU were to be added to a property, an additional parking space would need to be provided for it. The City Council would like additional feedback regarding other potential code changes for ADUs, including: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals Once published, the full council packet, containing documentation regarding each item the Council will discuss, will be located here: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet. You may submit comments to me at Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us, or to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us (I will forward all comments to the City Council). All written comments must be received prior to 5:00PM on the date of the meeting. You may provide oral testimony at the meeting. The meeting details are below: CITY OF BREMERTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding an ordinance to amend the Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, to modify the maximum number of permitted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) per parcel from one (1) to two (2). The City of Bremerton is the applicant for this action. DATE: February 17, 2021 TIME: 5:30PM This meeting is to be held remotely to help reduce the spread of the COVID-19. To join the meeting, please visit http://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings to get the log in information. Meeting information, including the agenda, may not appear until closer to the meeting date. All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on these items. The Department of Community Development will receive and record written comments and other exhibits on the above items prior to the close of business on the date of the hearing. If you have questions, call Isaac Gloor at (360) 473-5281 or Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:35 AM To: laura.severt.king@gmail.com Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Laura King) Ms. King, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:16 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Comments for the 2/17 hearing on ADUs Good afternoon, Attached is a comment letter for the upcoming ADU Public Hearing on Wednesday. Thank you, Isaac Gloor (he/him) Planner City of Bremerton From: L. S. King <laura.severt.king@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 1:57 PM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Comments for the 2/17 hearing on ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Isaac Gloor, Thank you for inviting me to submit comments on proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Though I don’t believe tiny houses should have to be “accessory” to be built in the city, any step toward more diverse and affordable housing is a step in the right direction. For that reason, I support increasing the number of ADUs per single-family lot and have some thoughts on the five proposed revisions. 1. I oppose restricting where ADUs can be built, which omits areas easily walkable from the shipyard and the ferry landing, as well as bus lines. If we're to reduce our automobile dependence, cities must allow greater density near where people work or access public transportation. 2. I oppose owner occupancy requirements. I don’t see much justice in allowing some property owners to be absentee landlords while insisting that others live next door to their tenants. That the requirement would also disqualify the city from participating in incentive programs makes it fiscally irresponsible as well. 3. I support affordability requirements in theory, but this one seems cumbersome to implement—and could end up backfiring. That Seattle hasn’t issued a permit for a rent-capped ADU* suggests that making it mandatory might discourage the building of second ADUs, which would suppress needed growth in the housing supply and thereby contribute to rising rents. So, overall, I’m ambivalent about this revision and hope, if it’s adopted, that the city council will revisit the issue if, after a year, no property owner has submitted plans for a second ADU. 4. I support dropping additional parking requirements. Given the city’s increasing number of car-free residents, I don’t think that second ADUs will significantly affect on-street parking. In addition, I do not consider the availability of ample street parking an unalloyed social good as it encourages an unsustainable dependence on private cars. 5. I support prohibiting short-term rental of ADUs, though I’d much rather see restrictions on short-term rentals that applied to apartments, houses, and condos as well. So I hope this ban can be a baby step toward policies that prioritize long-term housing over vacation rentals. One final thought: Rather than consider existing development standards as limitations on ADUs, perhaps we should see ADUs as revealing the limitations of existing development standards. The idea that >40 percent of a property must be "yard" would be an excellent place to start. Thank you, Laura King ---------------------- *I'd like to know whether anyone in Seattle actually applied for a permit to build a rent-capped ADU, and, if so, why the permit was denied. I commented as though no one had applied (or as though the denial resulted from the applicant's mishandling of the rent cap), but I recognize my assumption as unsafe. From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:31 AM To: msundberg7@gmail.com Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Monica Sundberg) Ms. Sundberg, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:08 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Good morning, The below email is a citizen comment for the City Council in regards to tonight’s Public Hearing. Thank you, Isaac Gloor (he/him) Planner City of Bremerton From: Monica Sundberg <msundberg7@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 5:43 PM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Isaac, Thank you for reaching out. Our property currently has a detached ADU and I was glad to be a part of the meetings that the city council has had so far regarding lifting ADU restrictions. I really want to thank the council members for taking so much into consideration with their decisions. While we don't personally have plans to add a second ADU to our property at this time, we do have an unfinished basement space that would be perfect for one. It would be nice to have the option to consider a 2nd ADU in the future, so here are my thoughts in reference to the potential code changes mentioned in your email: 1. Though our property falls into the allowed zone, I'm in favor of allowing a 2nd ADU city-wide. 2. I don't think the owner occupancy requirements are necessary for a 2nd ADU. 3. I like the affordability option but I do have some thoughts/questions before deciding: Say a property already had an existing ADU and it was currently rented out and therefore unavailable. The homeowner(s) then completes a 2nd ADU. Their (now adult) child wishes to move into it, but they have a job where they make over the income limit. Would they not be allowed to move in? I'm also wondering if there are any kind of tax incentives to build a 2nd ADU as an affordable housing unit? Construction costs have gone through the roof in the last year and while everyone hopes prices of building materials will come down, who knows if they will or if we are facing a new normal? 4. While I know parking is a big issue in the city, I also know that there are a lot of properties that cannot possibly add another parking space due to lot size restrictions or other obstacles. Our property is one of them. Adding more parking to our property would likely involve tens of thousands of dollars in structural engineering and construction costs, due to the way the property is laid out. Therefore, I support removing parking requirements for the 2nd ADU. 5. I strongly disagree with prohibiting all ADU's from becoming short term rentals, but I am definitely biased here. The second ADU, sure, but not the first. We've spent over a year fixing up our detached ADU so we could list it as a short term rental. We never did list it. The pandemic hit and all of our plans were put on pause. The house we live in is 105 years old, and badly in need of renovations. It has knob & tube wiring, a bad roof, old plumbing, windows that don't open, a 25 year old furnace, a 28 year old water heater, water damaged walls & floors... The list goes on and on. It will likely take us years to update everything due to budget constraints. Despite all of this, we love our old house and we're committed to restoring it, no matter how slowly we do so. In order to do some of the renovations, we'll be needing a place to stay. We have a detached ADU on our property. Why not stay in our own ADU while still being able to generate income from it (via short term rental) to put towards renovations? Having our ADU as a short term rental would allow us to rent it out on the days we choose. We'd be able to block off the days/weeks that we need to move into it, allowing us to be on site during renovations (something that is hugely important to us). By doing this, we wouldn't have to rent hotel rooms and board our dog, or find another living situation. Effectively, it would save us from a lot of stress, and save us a lot of money. Aside from that, we had also planned to keep our DADU as a place for our family and friends to come visit and have their own private space. Again, having it be a short term rental would provide us with another source of income while allowing us to block off weeks/weekends for our own visitors, something we could not do if it was a long term rental. Having ADU's as short term rentals will provide lodging tax dollars to the city of Bremerton to encourage tourism here. They also help keep costs down for guests since STR's are usually cheaper than hotels, and they would bring additional revenue to small businesses in the area. I'm from here and I love it here, and I would love for other people to experience this city and what it has to offer. As hosts, we would be encouraging our guests to visit our favorite restaurants, bars and shops and try the things we love. We've also been planning on supporting several small businesses directly in the unit itself, by way of toiletries, art, pastries etc. Please don't put short term rental restrictions on ADU's! Thank you for your time and taking my thoughts into consideration. Monica Sundberg On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 4:17 PM Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote: Dear Interested Parties, Update – This upcoming public hearing regarding code amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will be receiving public comments, but a Council decision will come at a future hearing (tentative date of March 3, 2021). You are a designated interested party due to your previous interest in this topic, and the City would like to invite you to provide comments and attend the meeting. Attached to this email is the Staff Memo that provides details about this proposal, which would permit up to two (2) ADUs per parcel. Currently, code limits each parcel to one (1) ADU. Under this proposal, if a 2nd ADU were to be added to a property, an additional parking space would need to be provided for it. The City Council would like additional feedback regarding other potential code changes for ADUs, including: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals Once published, the full council packet, containing documentation regarding each item the Council will discuss, will be located here: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet. You may submit comments to me at Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us, or to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us (I will forward all comments to the City Council). All written comments must be received prior to 5:00PM on the date of the meeting. You may provide oral testimony at the meeting. The meeting details are below: CITY OF BREMERTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding an ordinance to amend the Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, to modify the maximum number of permitted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) per parcel from one (1) to two (2). The City of Bremerton is the applicant for this action. DATE: February 17, 2021 TIME: 5:30PM This meeting is to be held remotely to help reduce the spread of the COVID-19. To join the meeting, please visit http://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings to get the log in information. Meeting information, including the agenda, may not appear until closer to the meeting date. All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on these items. The Department of Community Development will receive and record written comments and other exhibits on the above items prior to the close of business on the date of the hearing. If you have questions, call Isaac Gloor at (360) 473-5281 or Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:36 AM To: MDM4711@comcast.net Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Diane Manning) Ms. Manning, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:15 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Good morning, The below email is a citizen comment for the City Council in relation to the Public Hearing tonight relating to ADUs. Thank you, Isaac Gloor (he/him) Planner City of Bremerton From: MDM <MDM4711@comcast.net> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 8:51 AM To: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Isaac – Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. My comments submitted on 12/9/2020 on this proposal still stand. Here are my additional comments on this proposal: 1. Allowing two ADU’s per property is detrimental to the community. Should they only be allowed in certain areas of the City? Sure. Why not only in areas where City Council members, the Mayor, Department of Community employees and Planning Commissioners live? I apologize for the sarcasm, but this drives me crazy. Allowing a 2nd ADU does nothing to mitigate housing insecurity. They would be rented at market rates and drive up overcrowding in neighborhoods. Just say no!! 2. The requirement for the owner of the parcel to live on site six months of the year should still be a requirement for 1 ADU, but I know that ship has sailed. Definitely should be a requirement for 2 ADUs if you allow them. 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met. I agree with allowing a 2nd ADU only with the specific affordability requirement for 50 years, and the owner living on site six months of the year. However, I’m not sure having owner say it’s happening without offering proof – like bank statement, canceled check, etc. – would work. Enforcement would be tough. Unless you can offer a foolproof method of validating this every year, then I am opposed. 4. You should not have allowed a 1st ADU without requiring parking, so definitely disagree with this proposal. As you indicate, Bremerton does not have the rapid transit needed to encourage citizens to use transit instead of cars so it is unrealistic to plan as if residents will not have at least one car. 5. Short term rentals should not be allowed for the 1st ADU, let alone the 2nd, if approved. ADUs should only be for residents who rent long-term (3 months +). I do not believe the City (Planning Commission, Council members) are making good decisions regarding zoning and building. I know that probably surprises you. None of the changes you have made so far have helped ease housing insecurity. They have caused overcrowding on our roads and in our neighborhoods and damaged the peaceful enjoyment of homes for many of our citizens. You make changes that do not address deeply affordable housing. Poulsbo is making consistently smart decisions on zoning and construction. The fact that, in Poulsbo, ADU maximum size is 800 sf is spot on, one parking space required, only one ADU per lot, and a requirement the owner live in the primary house for six months out of the year is awesome!! They have made other stellar decisions on zoning that have served their citizens well and have maintained the high quality livability in Poulsbo. Suggest you take a page out of their book. With the exception of one Bremerton council member, none of the other council members have Town Hall meetings to actually hear from constituents. Nor does the Mayor. Even in this time of Zoom meetings elected officials can’t seem to make the effort. How is that representing your constituents if you don’t provide opportunity for discussion on these items? Neither the City Council meeting nor study session allows discussion with citizens. It is a one-way conversation. Yes, citizens can speak one time at the Council Meeting, but then City reps can disagree and disrespect the citizen and the citizen must sit quietly and just listen, even when the city rep is not entirely truthful. (And yes, I’ve had that happen to me.) It’s one of the reasons I’ve lost interest in attending City Council meetings – no discussion is allowed and the City Council minds are pretty much already made up. It’s too discouraging to observe. If any elected officials were courageous enough to conduct a Town Hall that would allow actual discussion between the elected official and their constituent, they could engage in actual discussion and education on a topic. Wow! Wouldn’t that be something? The City still allows tax breaks to developers who build market rate apartments. The City’s zoning and other changes so far have only served to increase the profit of the developers and members of the real estate industry. Per your City Council rules, my written comments are supposed to carry the same weight as if I were standing in front of you and making the comments in person, so please consider them in that manner. Sincerely, Diane Manning From: Isaac Gloor [mailto:Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 4:18 PM Cc: Isaac Gloor; Allison Satter Subject: Update: City Council Public Hearing Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Interested Parties, Update – This upcoming public hearing regarding code amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will be receiving public comments, but a Council decision will come at a future hearing (tentative date of March 3, 2021). You are a designated interested party due to your previous interest in this topic, and the City would like to invite you to provide comments and attend the meeting. Attached to this email is the Staff Memo that provides details about this proposal, which would permit up to two (2) ADUs per parcel. Currently, code limits each parcel to one (1) ADU. Under this proposal, if a 2nd ADU were to be added to a property, an additional parking space would need to be provided for it. The City Council would like additional feedback regarding other potential code changes for ADUs, including: 1. Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City (such as when near existing, or planned, higher population areas); 2. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; 3. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; 4. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; 5. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals Once published, the full council packet, containing documentation regarding each item the Council will discuss, will be located here: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet. You may submit comments to me at Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us, or to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us (I will forward all comments to the City Council). All written comments must be received prior to 5:00PM on the date of the meeting. You may provide oral testimony at the meeting. The meeting details are below: CITY OF BREMERTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding an ordinance to amend the Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, to modify the maximum number of permitted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) per parcel from one (1) to two (2). The City of Bremerton is the applicant for this action. DATE: February 17, 2021 TIME: 5:30PM This meeting is to be held remotely to help reduce the spread of the COVID -19. To join the meeting, please visit http://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings to get the log in information. Meeting information, including the agenda, may not appear unt il closer to the meeting date. All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on these items. The Department of Community Development will receive and record written comments and other exhibits on the above items prior to the close of business on the date of the hearing. If you have questions, call Isaac Gloor at (360) 473-5281 or Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:13 PM To: Brett Adams Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Brett Adams) Mr. Adams, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record, except your email address, per your request. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Brett Adams Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:09 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Comment on Accessory Dwelling Units for 2/17/21 Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to provide comments on the proposed changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of the BMC:  Planning Commission’s Recommendation to allow 2 ADU per single-family lot. o I am generally supportive; however, this is conditional on the rejection of Potential Code Revision #4 and the adoption of Potential Code Revision #5.  Potential Code Revision #1 – Place limitations about where a second ADU can be established (i.e. not allow them citywide). o I am in opposition to this Potential Code Revision. There is no reason to concentrate low-income housing when market forces would adequately control the need for ADUs to be located near public transportation, especially in light of my personal insistence upon the rejection of Potential Code Revision #4. It also seems to promote a NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) philosophy. It should be either good enough for everyone in the city, or not.  Potential Code Revision #2 – Allow second ADU only if there is owner occupancy on site. o I am generally neutral on this issue, though, if pressed, I would be in favor.  Potential Code Revision #3 – Allow second ADU only if affordability requirements are met. o I am generally neutral on this issue, though, if pressed, I would be in favor.  Potential Code Revision #4 – Allow second ADU without additional parking requirements. o I am strongly opposed to this Potential Code Revision. There are not enough public transportation options in this city to be car-free by choice. Additionally, there are already many places in the city where there is not enough street parking. o Relatedly, I am unsure as to whether the currently proposed wording would allow the off-street parking space to be associated with the first ADU rather than the second, even if the two are not built simultaneously.  Potential Code Revision #5 – Prohibit all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals. o I am strongly in favor of this Potential Code Revision. This city does not suffer from a lack of hotel space. Short-term rentals do nothing to reduce the housing problems in this area. o Relatedly, I would be in favor of this prohibition applied to all dwelling units in all residential zones. P.S. - Please remove my email address from any publicly distributed materials. Very Respectfully, Brett Adams District 3 Resident From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:05 PM To: Jakob Lunden <jakobrlunden@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Jakob Lunden) Mr. Lunden, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Jakob Lunden <jakobrlunden@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:05 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Second ADU Proposal - Strongly In Favor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Esteemed Councilmembers, Please vote "yes" for more and more affordable housing by supporting the proposed second ADU. We need more homes to meet the crisis of housing affordability and growing demand, which show no signs of stopping. I'd strongly consider creating more housing within a property my boyfriend and I bought and fixed up (currently small house + backyard cottage) by finishing off a basement suite. Restrictions such as limiting ADUs to certain neighborhoods, owner-occupancy requirements, additional off-street parking requirements work against goals of creating new homes and thus affordability. We can't call it a win for more/affordable housing if it's so complicated and expensive that nothing gets built. Regarding short-term rentals, we actually tried Air BnB for a time. It was somewhat successful but ultimately the work involved in running it wasn't worth the return, and we have a long-term tenant in there now. Let people try it if they want; allowing short-term rentals incentivises creation of new homes, many of which will eventually end up in the long-term rental market, housing local families. While I'm in favor of an affordability requirement, ADUs are inherently affordable relative to other housing types. Especially attached ADUs that could utilize existing square footage. This proposal wisely adds density and affordability without major disruption to our neighborhoods. The alternatives aren't pretty: too many families are currently doubled-up in existing rental stock, or individuals are stuck with a ton of housemates crammed together when they'd prefer the stability and serenity of their own place. You'll hear from a few naysayers who want everything to stay the same forever, but ironically that kind of thinking will exacerbate this housing crisis and only lead to more major, disruptive upzones. I'd rather see local homeowners and mom-and-pop landlords create affordable housing units in our existing neighborhoods than major upzones, teardowns and corporate- owned megablock apartments charging premium rent. Bottom line, voting yes means a local family in need of housing could get an affordable unit at my place, and many others like it. A no vote kills this chance, in the middle of a housing crisis. Thank you, -Jakob Lunden From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:04 PM To: Kade Platta <platta.kade@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - ADUs (Kade Platta) Kade, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be shared with the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler and DCD staff. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will be included as a part of the record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Kade Platta <platta.kade@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:52 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Isaac Gloor <Isaac.Gloor@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: COMMENTS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING - Additional ADUs can help create more affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I'd like to share my personal thoughts on the following so that they're spoken to at this evening's City Council meeting that I might not be able to attend: Allowing a 2nd ADU only in certain areas of the City; I'd like to hear more information on the pros and cons for this. I currently cannot envision the impact a restriction like this might have on the City. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if the owner of the parcel lives on site; I would argue against this. I believe if the true intent is to offer affordable housing in the City, then the homeowner should be able to purchase additional properties and thus offer additional ADUs. For example, homeowners can purchase a 2nd home 12 months after the purchase of their first home and acquire it with a lower rate if it is their primary residence. Assuming only a finite number of individuals in Bremerton would want to create an ADU on their property, giving those individuals the flexibility to move around and create ADUs on each property they own would significantly (in theory) increase the number of affordable housing options for renters and the like. Allowing a 2nd ADU only if affordability requirements are met; I'm against this assuming this means a maximum rent would be placed on the location. You could have an extremely nice ADU that is worth $1000/mo but the City forces them to rent it for $400/mo... this does not sit right with me. Affordability requirements also incentivise home owners to create super cheap (not necessarily nice) ADUs. Allowing a 2nd ADU without any parking requirements; I think 2nd ADUs should not require a parking spot be provided if they are located within a 20min bike ride of downtown Bremerton or any shipyard entrance (largest Kitsap employer). Again, if the intent is to create affordable housing, this will be a significant barrier-to-entry, since the surrounding area is PACKED with extremely minimal parking space as is. Prohibiting all ADUs from being used as short-term rentals What does "short-term" rental indicate? Air BnBs vice 12-month rental leases? If so, I am against this. If I owned the property and any associated ADUs, I feel I should be able to rent them out as I see fit without restrictions by the city. Kade Platta Bremerton Homeowner 218.316.1254 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Agreement with Kitsap County Department of Human Services for Behavioral Health Navigator Services Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Police Presenter: Randy Plumb Phone: (360) 473-5974 SUMMARY: Acceptance of the appropriation of $67,900 from the Kitsap County Department of Human Services to provide behavioral health services to reduce the number of people who recycle through the criminal justice systems, hospitals, emergency rooms, and crisis services. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Agreement with Kitsap County for Behavioral Health Navigator Services; and 2) Supplemental Email with Handout FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): During the 2021 budget process, $30,000 was approved to augment the cost of a Behavioral Health Navigator. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the agreement with the Kitsap County Department of Human Services, and to 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 5A IV.Project Description This project will provide beliavioral health services within the Crisis Intervention level of the c9ntinuum of care and addresses the following strategic goals: •Reduce the number of people in Kitsap County who use costly interventions including hospitals, emergency �ooms, and crisis services.•Reduce the number of people in Kitsap County who recycle through the criminal justice systems, including jails and prisons.•Reduce the number of chemically dependent and mentally ill youth and adults from initial or further criminal justice system involvement. This project will provide for Behavioral Health Navigator Services to provide 250 high utilizers with a mental health specialist who works to connect individuals with needed services. V. Project Activities The Behavioral Health Navigator Program will provide the Bremerton Police Department with an imbedded mental health specialist who will work to connect individuals with ·mental health and/or substance use disorders to needed services to reduce law enforcement and emergency services responses. The Navigator will co-respond with officers and will provide outreach after police contact. The Navigator will act as a liaison between the police and our community partners including the Bremerton Fire Department, attorneys, courts, corrections, and service providers (KMH, DCRs, Salvation Army, housing providers etc.) to provide the best outcomes for the individual. This includes advocating for mental health and drug abuse treatment, jail diversion programs, housing and continuity of care. The Navigator will meet people where they are located. This includes the Salvation Army, Coffee Oasis, the Police Station, Municipal Court, Jail or at a private residence. If the Navigator is going to a private residence, or if the person they are to meet is known to be volatile, the Navigator will be accompanied by a police officer for security. The Navigator Program will work with anyone referred to the Navigator by the police department, and occasionally the courts or fire department. As each case and person is different with different needs, the Navigator will work to connect the person to the social services which may be able to assist that person. This will be accomplished by making a personal contact with the provider and following up to see if the person made the appointment. VI.Project Design The co-response model of pairing a behavioral health specialist with a police officer is recognized as an emerging best practice across the coun try. Co-responder teams fall into Intercepts O and 1 in the commonly used Sequential Intercept Model, a conceptual From: Lori Smith <Lori.Smith@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 6:41 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Timothy Garrity <Timothy.Garrity@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Randy Plumb <Randy.Plumb@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Response to City Council Study Session Question regarding the Mental Health Navigator Grant (Sgt. Tim Garrity) Attn: Council Members (FYI) Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Garrity <Timothy.Garrity@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: February 11, 2021 at 11:19:23 PM PST To: Lori Smith <Lori.Smith@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Randy Plumb <Randy.Plumb@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: City Council Study Session Question regarding the Mental Health Navigator Grant Lori, Council Member Simpson asked a question at the study session regarding the Project Design section of the contract where it states Co-responder teams fall into Intercepts 0 and 1 in the commonly used Sequential Intercept Model. I have spoken with him regarding this and I could see where this may not be clear as it is written I have attached the Sequential Intercept Model handout to this e-mail for information and context when reviewing the contract. Could you please forward this information to the rest of the City Council for their review. The text from Project Design section of the contract is below for reference. Very Respectfully, Sgt. Tim Garrity #411 VI. Project Design The co-response model of pairing a behavioral health specialist with a police officer is recognized as an emerging best practice across the country. Co-responder teams fall into Intercepts 0 and 1 in the commonly used Sequential Intercept Model, a conceptual model to inform community-based responses to the involvement of people with mental and substance use disorders in the criminal justice system. When law enforcement responds to calls for service involving individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis, it is often related to unmet treatment needs, not major crimes or violence. Cities and counties are increasing their use of law enforcement and behavioral health co-responder models, recognizing that many situations cannot be solved by arrest, but instead are best addressed by behavioral health clinicians and crisis specialists. At its core, the co-responder framework typically features a specially trained team that includes at least one law enforcement officer and one mental health or substance abuse professional responding jointly to situations in which a behavioral health crisis is likely to be involved, often in the same vehicle, or arriving on scene at generally the same time. THE SEQUENTIAL INTERCEPT MODEL Advancing Community-Based Solutions for Justice-Involved People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders The Sequential Intercept Model Key Issues at Each Intercept Intercept 0 Mobile crisis outreach teams and co-responders. Behavioral health practitioners who can respond to people experiencing a behavioral health crisis or co-respond to a police encounter. Emergency Department diversion. Emergency department (ED) diversion can consist of a triage service, embedded mobile crisis, or a peer specialist who provides support to people in crisis. Police-friendly crisis services. Police officers can bring people in crisis to locations other than jail or the ED, such as stabilization units, walk-in services, or respite. Intercept 1 Dispatcher training. Dispatchers can identify behavioral health crisis situations and pass that information along so that Crisis Intervention Team officers can respond to the call. Specialized police responses. Police officers can learn how to interact with individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis and build partnerships between law enforcement and the community. Intervening with super-utilizers and providing follow-up after the crisis. Police officers, crisis services, and hospitals can reduce super-utilizers of 911 and ED services through specialized responses. Intercept 2 Screening for mental and substance use disorders. Brief screens can be administered universally by non-clinical staff at jail booking, police holding cells, court lock ups, and prior to the first court appearance. Data matching initiatives between the jail and community-based behavioral health providers. Pretrial supervision and diversion services to reduce episodes of incarceration. Risk-based pre-trial services can reduce incarceration of defendants with low risk of criminal behavior or failure to appear in court. Intercept 3 Treatment courts for high-risk/high- need individuals. Treatment courts or specialized dockets can be developed, examples of which include adult drug courts, mental health courts, and veterans treatment courts. Jail-based programming and health care services. Jail health care providers are constitutionally required to provide behavioral health and medical services to detainees needing treatment. Collaboration with the Veterans Justice Outreach specialist from the Veterans Health Administration. Intercept 4 Transition planning by the jail or in-reach providers. Transition planning improves reentry outcomes by organizing services around an individual’s needs in advance of release. Medication and prescription access upon release from jail or prison. Inmates should be provided with a minimum of 30 days medication at release and have prescriptions in hand upon release. Warm hand-offs from corrections to providers increases engagement in services. Case managers that pick an individual up and transport them directly to services will increase positive outcomes. Intercept 5 Specialized community supervision caseloads of people with mental disorders. Medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders. Medication- assisted treatment approaches can reduce relapse episodes and overdoses among individuals returning from detention. Access to recovery supports, benefits, housing, and competitive employment. Housing and employment are as important to justice-involved individuals as access to behavioral health services. Removing criminal justice-specific barriers to access is critical. Intercept 5 Community Corrections Parole Probation COMMUNITYViolation Violation Intercept 4 Reentry Jail Reentry Prison Reentry Intercept 3 Jails/Courts Specialty Court Dispositional CourtJail Intercept 2 Initial Detention/ Initial Court Hearings Initial Detention First Court Appearance Crisis Lines Crisis Care Continuum Intercept 0 Community Services COMMUNITYIntercept 1 Law Enforcement 911 ArrestLocal Law Enforcement History and Impact of the Sequential Intercept Model The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) was developed over several years in the early 2000s by Mark Munetz, MD and Patricia A. Griffin, PhD, along with Henry J. Steadman, PhD, of Policy Research Associates, Inc. The SIM was developed as a conceptual model to inform community-based responses to the involvement of people with mental and substance use disorders in the criminal justice system. After years of refinement and testing, several versions of the model emerged. The “linear” depiction of the model found in this publication was first conceptualized by Dr. Steadman of PRA in 20041 through his leadership of a National Institute of Mental Health-funded Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant awarded to PRA. The linear SIM model was first published by PRA in 20052 through its contract to operate the GAINS Center on behalf of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The “filter” and “revolving door” versions of the model were formally introduced in a 2006 article in the peer- reviewed journal Psychiatric Services authored by Drs. Munetz and Griffin3. A full history of the development of the SIM can be found in the book The Sequential Intercept Model and Criminal Justice: Promoting Community Alternatives for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness4. With funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, PRA developed the linear version of the SIM as an applied strategic planning tool to improve cross- system collaborations to reduce involvement in the justice system by people with mental and substance use disorders. Through this grant, PRA, working with Dr. Griffin and others, produced an interactive, facilitated workshop based on the linear version of the SIM to assist cities and counties in determining how people with mental and substance use disorders flow from the community into the criminal justice system and eventually return to the community. During the mapping process, the community stakeholders are introduced to evidence-based practices and emerging best practices from around the country. The culmination of the mapping process is the creation of a local strategic plan based on the gaps, resources, and priorities identified by community stakeholders. Since its development, the use of the SIM as a strategic planning tool has grown tremendously. In the 21st Century Cures Act5, the 114th Congress of the United States of America identified the SIM, specifically the mapping workshop, as a means for promoting community-based strategies to reduce the justice system involvement of people with mental disorders. SAMHSA has supported community-based strategies to improve public health and public safety outcomes for justice-involved people with mental and substance use disorders through SIM Mapping Workshop national solicitations and by providing SIM workshops as technical assistance to its criminal justice and behavioral health grant programs. In addition, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has supported the SIM Mapping Workshop by including it as a priority for the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program grants. With the advent of Intercept 0, the SIM continues to increase its utility as a strategic planning tool for communities who want to address the justice involvement of people with mental and substance use disorders6 . 1 Steadman, H.J. (2007). NIMH SBIR Adult Cross-Training Curriculum (AXT) Project – Phase II Final Report. Delmar, NY: Policy Research Associates. (Technical report submitted to NIMH on 3/27/07.) 2 National GAINS Center. (2005). Developing a comprehensive state plan for mental health and criminal justice collaboration. Delmar, NY: Author. 3 Munetz, M.R., & Griffin, P.A. (2006). Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57, 544-549. DOI: 10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.544 4 Griffin, P.A., Heilbrun, K., Mulvey, E.P., DeMatteo, D., & Schubert, C.A. (Eds.). (2015). The sequential intercept model and criminal justice: Promoting community alternatives for individuals with serious mental illness. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/ med:psych/9780199826759.001.0001 5 21st Century Cures Act, Pub. L. 114-255, Title XIV, Subtitle B, Section 14021, codified as amended at 41 U.S.C. 3797aa, Title I, Section 2991 6 Abreu, D., Parker, T.W., Noether, C.D., Steadman, H.J., & Case, B. (In press). Revising the paradigm for jail diversion for people with mental and substance use disorders: Intercept 0. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Sequential Intercept Model as a Strategic Planning Tool The Sequential Intercept Model is most effective when used as a community strategic planning tool to assess available resources, determine gaps in services, and plan for community change. These activities are best accomplished by a team of stakeholders that cross over multiple systems, including mental health, substance use, law enforcement, pretrial services, courts, jails, community corrections, housing, health, social services, people with lived experiences, family members, and many others. Employed as a strategic planning tool, communities can use the Sequential Intercept Model to: 1. Develop a comprehensive picture of how people with mental and substance use disorders flow through the criminal justice system along six distinct intercept points: (0) Community Services, (1) Law Enforcement, (2) Initial Detention and Initial Court Hearings, (3) Jails and Courts, (4) Reentry, and (5) Community Corrections 2. Identify gaps, resources, and opportunities at each intercept for adults with mental and substance use disorders 3. Develop priorities for action designed to improve system and service level responses for adults with mental and substance use disorders Policy Research Associates We are a national leader in behavioral health services research and its application to social change. Since 1987, we have assisted over 200 communities nationwide through a broad range of services to guide policy and practice. We conduct meaningful, quality work to improve the lives of people who are disadvantaged through evaluation and research, technical assistance and training, and facilitation and event planning that makes an impact in the field and promotes a positive work environment. @_PolicyResearch /PolicyResearchAssociates/ 345 Delaware Ave Delmar, NY 12054 p. (518) 439-7415 e. pra@prainc.com www.prainc.com Crisis response models provide short-term help to individuals who are experiencing behavioral health crisis and can divert individuals from the criminal justice system. Crisis response models include: • Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics • Crisis Care Teams • Crisis Response Centers • Mobile Crisis Teams Proactive police response with disadvantaged and vulnerable populations are a unique method of diverting individuals from the criminal justice system. Proactive police response models include: • Crisis Intervention Teams • Homeless Outreach Teams • Serial Inebriate Programs • Systemwide Mental Assessment Response Team Crisis Response Police Strategies Implementing Intercept 0 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Ordinance No. 5414 amending Section 10.10.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled “Parking Code” relating to Parking Permits and Parking in the Right-of- Way and on City Property COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Finance Presenter: Melinda Monroe Phone: (360) 473-5306 SUMMARY: Changes to Chapter 10.10 of the Parking code include: 1. In 10.10.010, addition of the term, "Boat Trailer" to the definitions. 2. Addition of 10.10.070(s) Parked on Sidewalk as a violation. 3. In 10.10.110(b)(3) "Vehicle Impound - Other Enforcement" adding no parking on city property. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5414; 2) Summary of Ordinance changes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5414 amending Chapter 10.10 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Parking Permits and Parking in the Right-of-Way and City Property. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 5B 1 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code ORDINANCE NO. 5414 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 10.10 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Parking Code,” relating to parking permits and parking in the right-of-way and city property. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update Chapter 10.10 of the Bremerton Municipal Code by amending certain provisions relating to parking permits and parking in residential parking zones, and to make related changes; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10.10.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.10.010 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the words and phrases set forth in this section are defined as follows: "Boat or vessel" means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water including marine vehicle (trailered or non-trailered). "Block" means the area comprised of properties along each side of a street between two (2) intersections or an intersection and a road end. "BMC" means Bremerton Municipal Code. “Boat Trailer” means any trailer or semi-trailer constructed and/or designed primarily to transport or carry boats. "City parking facility" means City owned or controlled parking facility, including parking garages and parking lots, whether paid or unpaid parking. "Department" means the Department of Financial Services, unless another department is referenced. "Director" means Director of Financial Services or other department director authorized by the Mayor to enforce this chapter, or their designee, including, but not limited to, parking enforcement officer, unless another director is referenced. "Downtown core" means that area in downtown Bremerton from and including Warren Avenue east to the waterfront and from and including 6th Street south to the waterfront and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle such as a car, truck, van, motorcycle, or any other similar self-propelled vehicle. "Paid parking zone" means the street, or part thereof, within the City where parking spaces are restricted to paid parking. "Parking generator" means anything that significantly increases commuter parking demand. Examples include, but are not limited to: ferry terminals, schools, hospitals, business districts, and military installations. 2 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code "Parking permit" means a permit issued by the City that exempts the permit holder, when displayed properly, from the timed parking restriction in effect in the permit holder’s restricted parking zone. "Passenger load only zone" means a parking space reserved for active passenger loading or unloading only. These spaces will be marked with the time restriction applicable to them. "Peak parking hours" means those hours in a day where a particular vicinity experiences the greatest demand for parking. "Permit only zone" means a prescribed area where on-street parking is reserved for the exclusive use of the permit holders in the prescribed vicinity and their visitors holding a permit. "RCW" means Revised Code of Washington. "Recreational vehicle" means a travel trailer, motor home, truck camper, or camping trailer that is primarily designed and used as temporary living quarters, is either self-propelled or mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, is transient and is not immobilized or permanently affixed to a mobile home lot and further includes a dune buggy or off-road vehicle (trailered or non-trailered). "Resident," as used in this chapter, refers to an individual living in a dwelling unit or a business owner operating a business on property owned or leased by the business owner. "Resident vehicle" means a motor vehicle parked in a prescribed residential area by a resident of the area. "Residential area" means a contiguous area containing public rights-of-way or parts thereof primarily abutted by residential property or residential use. "Restricted parking zone" means an area of the City subject to parking restrictions including time limits or other restrictions contained in this chapter including paid parking zones, passenger load only zones, permit only zones and other restricted parking areas or spaces both in residential and nonresidential areas. "Residential Permit Identification Number" means a residential permit identification number assigned to 1) a specific vehicle license plate number, and 2) a dwelling unit and/or business location. "Residential restricted parking zone" means a restricted parking zone in a residential area. "Street" means any right-of-way, highway, avenue, lane, road, drive, place, boulevard, alley, way, sidewalk, planting or parking strip, shoulder and every way or place in the City of Bremerton open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel or parking or other similar public use. "Trailer" means every vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a hitch or other connector, and ordinarily used for transporting items upon public rights-of-way. "Vehicle" means motor vehicle, car, truck, vehicle, van, tractor, bus, trailer (including boat trailer with or without a boat situated thereon), recreational vehicle, tractor or semi-trailer, motorcycle or boat or vessel (trailered or non-trailered), whether licensed or unlicensed, or motorized or nonmotorized, unless otherwise defined. "Visitor vehicle" means a motor vehicle parked by a person who is visiting a resident within a residential restricted parking zone. SECTION 2. Section 10.10.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Parking Permits" is hereby amended to read as follows: 3 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code 10.10.050 PARKING PERMITS. (a) Residential Parking Permits. Residential parking permits may be issued to park in a residential restricted parking zone as follows: (1) Residential parking permits will only be issued to applicants who are: (i) A legal resident of the residential restricted parking zone who has a motor vehicle registered in his or her name, or who has a motor vehicle for his or her exclusive use and under his or her control, or (ii) A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential restricted parking zone. (2) Residential parking permits may be issued for motor vehicles not exceeding twenty-two (22) feet in length or having a maximum gross vehicle weight in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds. (3) Parking in a residential restricted parking zone is restricted to parking within two (2) blocks of the dwelling unit or business location assigned to the residential permit or to any other area as designated by the Director, and (4) Permits will be issued for one (1) year terms and be renewed upon expiration conditioned upon meeting the residency requirements for a permit. There shall be a limit of two (2) residential parking permits issued per dwelling unit/business location, unless parking availability allows a greater number not to exceed four (4) permits per dwelling unit as determined by the Director in his or her sole discretion. (b) Visitor Parking Permits. Visitor parking permits are authorized for residents of a residential restricted parking zone for bona fide transient use for visitors to the residence. No dwelling unit or place of business located in a residential restricted parking zone shall be issued more than one (1) visitor permit. It shall be the responsibility of the resident to control the use of the permit. Bona fide transient uses include: visiting guests, babysitters, repair persons and other similar visitors. The following is prohibited: (1) Parking in excess of seven (7) days within any thirty (30) day period unless approved administratively prior to such use; or (2) Parking more than one (1) block from the permitted residence, or (3) Use of visitor permits by residents for the residents’ vehicles. Visitor permits shall only be used for visitor vehicles. (c) Service Parking Permits. Service parking permits may be issued, on a short term temporary basis, for parking of vehicles on a street for a period of time exceeding a parking restriction time period established in BMC 10.10.030 and 10.10.040(a) when necessary. Service parking permits may be issued to landlords or their contractors for building improvements, individuals working in a home service industry (home health care, etc.), or for other short-term use for the providing of services to a residence or to a business in a residential restricted parking zone or a nonresidential restricted parking zone. Service parking permits, and any extensions thereto, shall be issued for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days unless the Director determines that a longer period is warranted. The City may require proof of ongoing continuous work and of a City business or landlord license, as applicable, as a condition to maintaining or extending a valid permit. The following is prohibited: (1) Parking more than two (2) blocks from the permitted dwelling unit. (d) Recreational Vehicles. Residential permits may be issued for recreational vehicle and boat trailer parking as follows: 4 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code (1) The parking permit shall be valid for a period of time not exceeding forty- five (45) days during a calendar year, (2) Parking during the permit term shall not exceed five (5) consecutive days in the same location, and (3) Recreational vehicles are prohibited from parking more than two (2) blocks from the permitted dwelling unit. (e) Display. Parking permits shall state thereon the restricted parking zone, the permit holder's residential permit identification number and the expiration date. When possible, permits shall be displayed so as to be clearly visible through the rear window of the vehicle on the left side thereof or the front windshield on the left side when necessary. Otherwise, all permit types shall be visible from the outside of the vehicle at all times or in another location designated by the Director. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an on-street parking space within the designated residential parking area. (f) The Director may establish policies for the issuance of parking permits. Parking permits may be issued throughout different times of the year based on zones or other criteria. (g) Permits issued pursuant to this section are not subject to the parking restriction time periods such as one (1), two (2), three (3), or four (4) hour parking set forth in BMC 10.10.030 and 10.10.040(a), however, they are subject to the five (5) day parking restriction set forth in BMC 10.10.070(b)(1) unless otherwise permitted with a temporary parking permit pursuant to BMC 10.10.070(b)(4). SECTION 3. Section 10.10.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Parking Violations” is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.10.070 PARKING VIOLATIONS. In addition to those statutes set forth in the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance as adopted pursuant to Chapter 10.04 BMC restricting standing, stopping and parking of vehicles, it shall be unlawful and punishable as a civil infraction for any person to commit any of the following actions: (a) Parking in Time Limit and No Repark Zones. (1) Downtown Core. Where a time limit and no re-parking is established by official signs, no vehicle may be re-parked on either side of the same named street (i.e., Pacific Avenue or 5th Street) in the downtown core during the same calendar day after the expiration of the posted time limit. For purposes of this section, a vehicle shall be deemed to be re-parked and in violation of this section even if the vehicle is moved prior to the expiration of the posted time limit and is re-parked on either side of the same named street. (2) Residential. Where posted, it is unlawful for a vehicle to remain parked, or to be re-parked within four (4) blocks of the original parking location within a restricted parking zone, if the parking time or combined parking time for the vehicle exceeds the time limitations of the parking zone. Vehicles issued permits under Chapter 10.10 BMC shall be exempt from posted time limits according to the terms of the permit, however, they will not be exempt from the time restrictions set forth in subsections (b)(1), (2) and (3) of this section. (b) Parking or Storage of Vehicles Within Street. Except when otherwise provided by subsection (b)(4) of this section, the parking or storage of vehicles within any street shall be subject to the following parking restrictions in addition to other parking restrictions set forth in this chapter: 5 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code (1) Time Restriction - No Repark. The parking or storage of any vehicle in the same parking location on a street in excess of five (5) consecutive calendar days without movement shall be unlawful. If any time after the initial five (5) consecutive calendar day period the vehicle is still parked in the same location on the street in violation of the five (5) day parking restriction and is then re-parked on the same street within the same block for any period of time up to twenty-four (24) hours, it shall be considered to be parked in the same location within the street and therefore still in violation of the five (5) day parking restriction. (2) Recreational Vehicles, Boats or Vessels, and Trailers - Additional Restrictions. No person shall park any recreational vehicle, boat or vessel, or trailer, as defined in BMC 10.10.010 on any street for longer than twenty-four (24) hours, unless such activity is authorized pursuant to a temporary permit pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of this section or to a residential permit pursuant to BMC 10.10.050(d). If any time after the initial unpermitted twenty-four (24) hour period the vehicle is still parked in the same location on the street in violation of the twenty-four (24) parking restriction and is then re-parked on the same street within the same block for any period of time up to twenty-four (24) hours, it shall be considered to be parked in the same location within the street and therefore still in violation of the twenty- four (24) parking restriction. (3) Oversized Vehicles - Additional Restrictions. The City Council finds that the parking and storage of commercial trucks, vans, tractor trailers, and semi-trailers, or combination thereof, exceeding twenty-two (22) feet in length (including any attached trailer) or with a maximum gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds presents unacceptable risks and hazards to public health, safety, and welfare when such vehicles are parked or stored on any street at times when such vehicles are not engaged in business or commercial activity. Accordingly, no commercial truck, vehicle, van, trailer, or semi-trailer, or combination thereof exceeding twenty-two (22) feet in length (including any attached trailer) or with a maximum gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds, whether licensed or unlicensed, may be stored or parked upon any street for longer than twenty-four (24) hours, unless such activity is authorized pursuant to a temporary permit pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of this section. (4) Temporary Parking Permits - Exception to Time Restrictions. A vehicle may park on a street for a period of time that exceeds the time restrictions set forth in this section, BMC 10.10.070, as well as any parking restriction time period established in BMC 10.10.030 and 10.10.040(a) if it has been specifically permitted, on a temporary short term limited basis and for the period of time permitted. Such a permit may be issued: (i) To a resident when necessary such as when the resident will be out of town or some other similar short term use; (ii) With a public works right-of-way permit or other similar City or State authorization for construction or other related public purpose; or (iii) When otherwise authorized by the Director for good reason. (c) Unauthorized Disabled Parking. It is a traffic infraction for any person to park a vehicle in a public place provided on private property without charge or on public property reserved for physically disabled persons without a placard or special license plate as provided for in BMC 10.10.060 and RCW 46.19.050. If a person is charged with a violation, the person shall not be determined to have committed an infraction if the person produces in court or before the court appearance the placard or special license plate required under this section. Additionally, it is a traffic infraction pursuant to subsection (a) of this section for any vehicle displaying the 6 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code placard or special license plate as provided for in BMC 10.10.060 and RCW 46.19.050 to violate any time restrictions imposed on nonmetered, on-street parking places reserved for persons with physical disabilities as well as non-reserved, on-street parking spaces. (d) Parking on City Property. A motor vehicle parking or standing on property owned, leased, or operated by the City is subject to the following restrictions: (1) Only motor vehicles belonging to persons who work for the City, who are transacting business with the City or who otherwise have specific permission from the City, may be parked upon such property; and (2) Where pavement markings or signs designate parking stalls on such property, all motor vehicles must be parked within such stalls and not elsewhere on such property, unless otherwise authorized by the City; and (3) Where a parking stall or stalls is designated by pavement markings or signage, any motor vehicle parked in these stalls must be parked within the designated limits of the parking space as indicated. (e) Parking Against Traffic. Except when otherwise provided by City code, ordinance or resolution, it shall be unlawful for any vehicle to stop or park on a street unless: (1) Stopped or parked parallel (or at an angle when authorized) to the traveled portion of the street; (2) In the direction of authorized traffic movement of the street immediately adjacent thereto; and (3) Within twelve (12) inches of the curb or as close as practicable to the edge of the shoulder. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of subsection (m) of this section and RCW 46.61.575 adopted as part of the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 10.04 BMC, the provisions of this subsection shall apply. (f) Expired Registration. It is unlawful to park any vehicle on a street or on public property without valid, current vehicle license plates or registration tab displayed according to law. (g) Inoperable Motor Vehicle. It is unlawful to park or store an inoperable motor vehicle on a street or on public property. For purposes of this subsection, an "inoperable motor vehicle" is defined as a motor vehicle which is: (1) By any reason of dismantling, disrepair, or other cause is incapable of being propelled under its own power; (2) Unsafe for operation on the streets and highways of this State due to inability to comply with the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance as adopted pursuant to Chapter 10.04 BMC; or (3) Damaged to such extent as to render it illegal for operation on any street, including but not limited to any of the following: broken head or taillights, broken or missing mirrors, cracked or missing window or windshield, deflated tires, missing seats or steering wheel or other general conditions that would render a vehicle incapable of being driven on a public highway. (h) Junk and Abandoned Vehicles. Enforcement of junk and abandoned vehicles may be pursuant to Chapter 46.55 RCW adopted as part of the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 10.04 BMC. 7 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code (i) Counterfeit Permits. It is unlawful for any person to copy, reproduce, or otherwise counterfeit a parking permit or to possess any counterfeit copy or facsimile of a City parking permit. (j) Unauthorized Use of Permit. It is unlawful for any person issued a parking permit by the City to: (1) Lend, sell or assign said permit to another; (2) Display any permit issued to another; or (3) Display any permit issued when the recipient of the permit is no longer eligible pursuant to Chapter 10.10 BMC. (k) Tampering with Parking Meters or Collection Devices. No person shall deface, injure, tamper with, open, or willfully break, destroy, or impair the usefulness of any parking meter or collection device. (l) Unlawful Parking in City Lot. In addition to other enforcement remedies, it is unlawful to park any vehicle on a City-owned parking lot or structure without paying the posted fee or parking in excess of posted time limits or in violation of use restrictions. (m) Obliterating Tire Markings. It is unlawful to conceal, obliterate, or erase markings on vehicle tires made by a parking enforcement officer for the purpose of recording parking time. (n) False Application. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally provide false or misleading information on any application for a parking permit. (o) Failure to Surrender Permit. The Director is authorized to revoke the residential parking permit of any person found to be in violation of its intended use. Upon written notification of permit revocation by the Director, it shall be unlawful for any person to fail to surrender a parking permit as directed. (p) Parking Fee - Nonpayment. It is unlawful to park a vehicle in any parking space monitored by a parking fee collection device, including parking meters, without payment as indicated on the collection device. (q) Parking Fee - Time Permitted. It is unlawful to park a vehicle in any parking space monitored by a collection device, including parking meters, for a consecutive period of time longer than that limited period of time for which parking is lawfully permitted in the time zone, irrespective of the amount of money deposited in such collection device. (r) Habitation in Vehicles. No person shall park and/or occupy any vehicle on any street for the purpose of habitation in such vehicle. For purpose of this section, habitation means to camp, live or occupy within such vehicle for residential purposes. (s) Parked on Sidewalk. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or other City official, or official traffic control device, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle on or over a sidewalk, whether constructed or not, or on a street planting strip in accordance with RCW 46.61.570(1)(a)(ii). SECTION 4. Section 10.10.110 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Vehicle Impound - Other Enforcement” is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.10.110 VEHICLE IMPOUND - OTHER ENFORCEMENT. Any vehicle parked and/or used in violation of this chapter or any regulation or restriction established thereunder, or any other applicable provision of the Bremerton City Code or of any ordinance, is an unauthorized vehicle declared to be a nuisance which may be summarily abated by the impounding and removal of the vehicle as follows: 8 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code (a) Impound with Notice As authorized pursuant to RCW 46.55.080(1), an unauthorized vehicle left within a street may be impounded under the direction of a police officer or parking enforcement officer after notice of such proposed impoundment has been securely attached to and conspicuously displayed on the vehicle for a period of twenty-four (24) hours prior to such impoundment pursuant to RCW 46.55.085 under the following circumstances: (1) Violations of Parking Code. When such vehicle is parked and/or used in violation of the provisions of this chapter or any other law, ordinance or regulation; or (2) Chronic Nuisance. A vehicle is hereby declared to be a chronic nuisance and subject to impound as provided herein when: (i) Outstanding Infractions. When a vehicle is parked on any street or City parking facility within the City and there are three (3) or more outstanding parking infractions issued against the vehicle for each of which a person has failed to respond, failed to appear at a requested hearing, or failed to pay a parking infraction for at least forty-five (45) days from the date of the filing of the notice of infraction. (ii) Multiple Infractions. When a vehicle is parked on any street within the downtown core as defined in BMC 10.10.010 and said vehicle has been issued six (6) or more parking infractions while parked on any street within the City, whether paid or unpaid, within the preceding ninety (90) days. Furthermore, such vehicle may not park on any street within the downtown core for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the notice of impoundment. (b) Impound Without Notice. As authorized pursuant to RCW 46.55.080(1), a vehicle may be impounded under the direction of a police officer or parking enforcement officer, with or without citation and without giving prior notice to its owner as required in subsection (a) of this section, only under the following circumstances: (1) Public Safety. When a vehicle is unattended upon a street where the vehicle constitutes an obstruction to traffic or public safety as defined in RCW 46.55.113; or (2) City Parking Facility. When an unauthorized vehicle is parked in a City owned or controlled parking facility which is properly posted with parking restrictions pursuant to RCW 46.55.070. (3) Parking on City Property. When a vehicle is parked within an area not designated for parking and blocking the use of the area by others or creates a public safety hazard. (c) Other Impoundment. In addition to the impound provisions set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and those penalties established pursuant to this chapter, a vehicle in violation of any of the parking regulations established herein may be impounded by a registered tow truck operator at the direction of a police officer pursuant to those requirements established in WAC 308-330-406 and other related sections of the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance as adopted pursuant to Chapter 10.04 BMC. (See RCW 46.55.113) (d) Immobilization of Vehicle. In lieu of impoundment, a vehicle may be immobilized with a restraining device (i.e., boot). A vehicle that has been immobilized for forty- eight (48) or more hours may be impounded, unless the vehicle needs to be towed sooner for public safety reasons as set forth is subsection (b)(1) of this section as determined by the police officer or parking enforcement officer. 9 Chapter 10.10 BMC – Parking Code SECTION 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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 ____________________, 2021. _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ _________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. ORDINANCE NO. ________. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Finance\2019.09.30 BMC 10.10 - Parking Code Working for and with our citizens to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city Finance Department - Parking Enforcement 345 6th Street, STE 100.  Bremerton, WA 98337  (360) 473-5306  FAX (360) 473-5360 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 14, 2021 TO: file FROM: Melinda Monroe SUBJECT: Bremerton Municipal Code Traffic 10.10 The purpose of this memo is to inform stake-holders of proposed updates to the Bremerton Municipal code. The proposed updates serve to improve enforcement of recreational vehicle permits, and improve the enforcement of vehicles blocking sidewalks and/or parked on city property. The updates are: 1) In section 10.10.010 "Definitions", addition of the term, "Boat Trailer" to the definitions. This is a continuation of the update made in 2020 allowing recreational vehicle permits 2) Adding a new enforcement code via 10.10.070(s)"Parked on Sidewalk", allowing enforcement to cite against a vehicle that extends over a sidewalk. 3) A clarification to BMC 10.10.110 (b) (3) "Vehicle Impound - Other Enforcement", adding no parking on city property when the vehicle is parked within an area not designated for parking and interfering with the use of the area by others or the vehicle jeopardizes public safety such habitual parking on the boardwalk. These changes have been reviewed and approved by the following: Department Title Name Date Signature Legal Assistant City Attorney, Mychael Raya _____________________ Legal City Attorney, Roger Lubovich ______________________ Executive Mayor, Greg Wheeler ______________________ 1/22/2021 1/21/2021 Greg Wheeler Digitally signed by Greg Wheeler Date: 2021.01.27 15:08:01 -08'00' AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Public Works Agreement with Spectra Contract Flooring for the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Project COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Parks & Recreation Presenter: Jeff Elevado Phone: (360) 473-5428 SUMMARY: The carpet floor covering in the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse has reached the end of its useful life and requires replacement. A Request for Proposal was provided to five contractors on the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) Small Works Roster. The lowest responsive and responsible bid was received from Spectra Contract Flooring in the amount of $52,904.68, plus applicable W ashington State Sales Tax (WSST). ATTACHMENTS: 1) Public Works Agreement; 2) Attachment A (Spectra Contract Flooring Proposal); 3) Procurement File Memo FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds for this contract are available in the Golf Capital Reserve Fund. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a contract in the amount of $52,904.68, plus any applicable Washington State Sales Tax, to Spectra Contract Flooring; 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 5C PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 1 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington Municipal Corporation (“City”), and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc. (“Contractor”), whose mailing address is 17620 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, WA 98188. The parties agree as follows: 1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following services for the City:  Labor and materials to replace the carpet in the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse as identified in the attached proposal attached hereto as “Attachment A”. 2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within 30 calendar days from the date of issuance of the City’s Notice to Proceed. 3. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Contractor the total amount of $52,904.68, plus any applicable Washington State Sales Tax, for the work and services contemplated in this agreement. The City shall pay the Contractor ninety percent (90%) of the Contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the work by the City, and the remainder upon fulfillment of the conditions listed below and throughout this agreement. A. No Performance Bond. Because this contract including applicable sales tax is $150,000 or less, and pursuant to Chapter 39.08 RCW, the Contractor, in lieu of providing the City a performance bond, has elected to have the City retain the final ten percent (10%) of the Contract amount for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of final acceptance, or until receipt of all necessary releases from the State Department of Revenue and the State Department of Labor & Industries and until settlement of any liens filed under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later. B. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and extra work and materials furnished without the City’s written approval. If Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and Contractor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. “Additional costs” shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum Contract price specified above. The City further reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete the Contract work, including any Additional Costs, from any and all amounts due or to become due the Contractor. PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 2 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) C. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL PAYMENT (EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL PRECLUDE ALL CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS MADE. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall be at all times acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Contractor shall secure at its expense, and shall be responsible for all payments of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor, officer, agents, employees and sub-contractors. The Contractor shall also secure all applicable business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract services, including all required licenses for Contractor's officers, agents, employees and sub-contractors. 5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreement for good cause. “Good cause” shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events: A. The Contractor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the Contract work. B. The Contractor’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in this agreement. C. The Contractor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to sub- contractors or for material or labor. D. The Contractor’s persistent disregard of federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations. E. The Contractor’s filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt. If the City terminates this agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any further monies due under this agreement until the Contract work is completed. 6. PREVAILING WAGES. 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. The latest prevailing wage rate revision issued by the Department of Labor and Industries is attached. 7. CHANGES. The City may issue a written work change directive for any change in the Contract work during the performance of this agreement. If the Contractor determines, for any reason, that a change order is necessary, Contractor must submit a written change order request to the City’s project manager within two (2) business days of the date the Contractor knew or PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 3 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) should have known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the City determines that the change increases or decreases the Contractor’s costs or time for performance, the City will make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement with the Contractor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Contractor shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving a written work change directive or change order from the City. If the Contractor fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Contractor waives its right to make any claim or submit subsequent change order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the Contractor disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Contractor must complete the change order work; however, the Contractor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below: A. Procedure and Protest by the Contractor. If the Contractor disagrees with anything required by a work change directive or change order, including any direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the City, the Contractor shall: 1. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City; 2. Supplement the written protest within fourteen (14) calendar days with a written statement that provides the following information: a. The date of the Contract’s protest. b. The nature and circumstances that caused the protest. c. The provisions in this agreement that support the protest. d. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested work and how that estimate was determined. e. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change or disruption if the Contractor is asserting a schedule change or disruption. The Contractor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time incurred as a result of the protested work. The City shall have access to any of the Contractor’s records needed for evaluating the protest. 3. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest. B. Contractor’s Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has ordered. C. Contractor’s Acceptance of Changes. The Contractor accepts all requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A change PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 4 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) order that is accepted by Contractor as provided in this section shall constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change. D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides, the Contractor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any written order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the procedures of this section, the Contractor completely waives any claims for protested work and accepts form the City any written order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). 8. CLAIMS. The Contractor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other than change orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims. Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time, whether under this agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Contractor unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable provisions of this agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim is set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the date Contractor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a Contractor’s written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section 7.A.2.a.-e. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY. Contractor must, in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is complete. 9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within one year from the date of the City’s acceptance of the Contract work. When defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year form the date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the Contractor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the corrections and the Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order to accomplish the correction. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officer, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 5 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the City’s sole negligence. The City’s inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor’s work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officials, emplo yees, agents and volunteers, the Contractor’s liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor’s negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR’S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 11. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Contract work by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-contractors. Before beginning the work on the project described in this agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad from property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate; and D. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000. . Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 6 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) The City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The Contractor’s insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies. 12. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of Contractor shall not discriminate in any employment practice on the basis of age (40+), sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation/gender identity, marital status, military status, or the presence of any physical, mental or sensory disability. B. ADA Statement. The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to both employment and admission to participation in the programs, services and activities of the City of Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment will be provided. C. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this agreement. D. Work Performed at Contractor’s Risk. Contractor shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of this agreement. All work shall be done at Contractor’s own risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 7 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) conferred in one or more instances, shall not be constructed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect F. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and Contractor under any of the provisions of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County, Washington. G. Attorney’s Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW 39.04.240, in any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties’ performance of this agreement, each party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the City’s right to indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement. H. Written Notice. All communications regarding this agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated on this agreement. I. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. J. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Contractor. K. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect. L. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this agreement, together with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative of the City, and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any manner this agreement. This agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire agreement between the parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this agreement conflict with any language contained in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this agreement. CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON Print Name: Print Name: Greg Wheeler Title: Title: Mayor PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 8 of 8 (between City of Bremerton and Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc.) DATE DATE Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON: _________________________ Jeff Elevado, Director Spectra Contract Flooring, Inc. Bremerton Parks & Recreation 17620 West Valley Highway 680 Lebo Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Bremerton, WA 98310 jeff.elevado@ci.bremerton.wa.us (360) 473-5428 Daryl Matheny, General Manager Gold Mt. Golf Course 7263 W. Belfair Valley Rd. Bremerton, WA 98312 daryl.matheny@goldmt.com (360) 415-6871 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich Bremerton City Attorney ATTEST: Angela Hoover, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 06 2020.DOC PREVAILING WAGES 17620 West Valley Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc. d/b/a Fax:(425) 656-9104 (425) 656-5919Phone: Spectra Contract Flooring - Seattle A B erkshire Hathaway Company DateProposal Submitted To Attention Phone Fax 11 /20/20 Job Name Job # GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF Street Job Street Proposal ID We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: City, State and Zip Job City, State and Zip Customer PO Bremerton, WA 98312 BREMERTON, WA 98311 7263 W Belfair Valley Road Add #Date of PlansArchitect None Customer Job # 82992 47046 None ( ) - (360) 415-5432Abel Andersoncity of Bremertn Item Description Price Labor-Demo-Carpet-Gluedown $2,829.60 Disposal of carpet $700.00 Demo of wood base for re-installation.$300.00 Reinstall wood base $2,400.00 Shaw carpet tile Kinetic 24" x 24" material only $27,701.91 Labor-Carpet Tile-N/A-$4,176.11 Shaw Contract 5100 Pressure-Sensitive Flooring Adhesive 4 Gallon $738.96 Labor-Floor Prep-Scrape-sf $1,750.00 Mhwk-OptiSeal -Acrylic Based Primer/Seal-$1,169.86 Labor-Floor Prep-Sealing-25-$1,400.00 Labor-Floor Prep-Float Floor-N/A $5,305.50 Ardex Feather Edge Finish 10#$2,107.00 Carpet Tile;S Tl-Path Tile -Multituft-24" x 24"-28 oz $2,083.73 Labor-Carpet Tile $198.86 Futura LVT125 Transition $43.15 This proposal includes prevailing wage. All hours all stages as desired by Gold Mountain Golf. Includes demo and removal of existing flooring, prep for new flooring. Reinstall wood base. New vinyl base a existing vinyl base material and labor. No concrete testing or any other condition below applies except approval within 30 days of this offer. Sales Tax $4,761.42 $57,666.10Base Bid Total: Alternate The following alternates can be used: PriceReferenceDescription $13,465.51add for beyond tile Carpet Tiles Shaw Contract Beyond 12x48 12" x 48" add for beyond tile total:$13,465.51 Proposal Inclusions and Exclusions: 1.This proposal is subject to acceptance within 30 days and must be acknowledged and made part of any contractual agreement. If any of Spectra's costs for materials increase by more than 5% of the prices in effect at the time of acceptance of Spectra's proposal, than Customer shall reimburse Spectra for all such price increases. Spectra agrees to use best efforts to obtain lowest possible prices from available suppliers. Page 1 of 2 Proposal ID: 82992 17620 West Valley Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc. d/b/a Fax:(425) 656-9104 (425) 656-5919Phone: Spectra Contract Flooring - Seattle A B erkshire Hathaway Company $57,666.10 We PROPOSE to perform the work complete in accordance with the specifications and as described above for the SUM of: Signature: Conditions of Proposal: Steve Carter Cell: (253) 226-3298 Email: stephen.carter@spectracf.com 1.This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted within 30 days of its issuance. Spectra will consider reasonable requests to engage in negotiations for revisions to this Proposal, including signing a subcontract that incorporates the terms of this Proposal. A proposal not accepted within 30 days will be subject to price escalation for materials. 2.This proposal is subject to credit review and approval. Payment terms are net 30 days. A convenience fee of 2% will be added if paying via credit card. Past due invoices are subject to service charges of 1.5% per month (18% per annum). In the case of any default, Customer shall pay Spectra's reasonable attorney fees and costs, including those on any appeal, even if no suit or action is filed. 3.All work shall be performed in a workmanlike manner according to industry standards. Areas to receive flooring shall be free and clear of debris. Any changes to the work shall be performed only after execution of a written change order. 4.Prior to commencement of Spectra's work: (a) Customer shall test all concrete sub floors receiving flooring for vapor emission levels and alkalinity per manufacturers' recommendations utilizing ASTM F2170 and/or F1869 and provide written results to Spectra, including a list of any sealers applied to the concrete sub floor; (b) If Customer does not provide such reports at least 10 days prior to commencement of Spectra's work, then Customer shall provide Spectra with access to all concrete sub floors for appropriate testing and Customer shall be responsible for the costs of such testing; and (c) Any concrete sub floors not meeting manufacturers' requirements for installation will require correction or the execution of a separate waiver agreement. 5.All work is contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond Spectra's control. Customer shall carry insurance for all hazards, including fire. Spectra's workers are fully covered by Worker's Compensation and Liability Insurance. 6.Customer represents and warrants that: (a) the project site contains no hazardous or other dangerous substances, either exposed or concealed; or (b) Customer has given written notice to Spectra of all such substances and their location(s). To the fullest extent permitted by law, Customer shall indemnify, defend and hold Spectra harmless from any damage, claim, loss, expense and attorney fees related to Spectra's liability, if any, including any federal or state statute related to hazardous or other dangerous substances. 7.Spectra is fully licensed, bonded, and insured. This proposal does not include participation in any OCIP/CCIP or related programs. Requests for Spectra to participate in such programs may result in additional costs. 8.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all prices are subject to immediate increase without limitation in the event of material change to applicable duties, taxes, tariffs, similar charges, or other government action effective May 13, 2020. Contract License #:SPECTCF972MJ | Expire Date : 7/11/2021 Page 2 of 2 ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL: The above prices, specifications, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby ACCEPTED. city of Bremertn Signed: Yo u are authorized to do the work as specified. Customer:Date: BREMERTON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 680 LEBO BLVD., BREMERTON, WA 98310 360.473.5305 MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 TO: Procurement File FROM: Jeff Elevado Parks & Recreation Director A Requests for Proposal (RFP) was provided to five (5) vendors from the MRSC Small Works Roster for the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse Flooring Project. Staff received proposals from two (2) vendors. The proposal received from Great Floors did not include critical elements identified in the Scope of Work that was part of the RFP, specifically subfloor preparation and the removal and replacement of the wooden baseboard trim. The Great Floors bid was therefore determined to be “nonresponsive”. In accordance with RCW 39.04.010, staff recommends award of the contract to a responsible bidder with the lowest responsive bid, which in this instance is the bid submitted by Spectra Contact Flooring. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 10, 2021 Ordinance No. 5415 amending Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to promotions and benefits COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 17, 2021 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney, Fire Chief Phone: (360) 473-5380 SUMMARY: Amending the code will allow employees moving from a represented classification to a management/professional classification to maintain their current benefits and not take a reduction in benefits. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5415 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. 5415 amending Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to promotions and benefits. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 5D Page 1 of 3 BMC 2.50.032 – Actual Salary Rate ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 2.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Management and Professional Staff Compensation Program” by amending Section 2.50.032 related to promotions and benefits. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend provisions of Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to promotions and benefits; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2.50.032 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Actual Salary Rate" is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.50.032 ACTUAL SALARY RATE. (a)Initial Rate. The salary rate of a person upon appointment to a management or professional position shall be set no lower than Rate 1 of the salary band to which an employee’s position is assigned. When it is in the best interest of the City, the City Council may authorize an initial salary of a newly hired person at a rate which exceeds Rate 1. (b)Salaries may be increased as follows: (1)Salary Rate Advancement. Each person shall be eligible for a salary rate advancement upon completion of twelve (12) full months of regular (as opposed to interim) service at each rate in the salary band. To receive a salary rate advancement, the employee must be evaluated as "meets expectations" (or equivalent) on his or her work performance evaluation. Salary rate advancements shall be an increase of one rate in the same salary band, if available. (2)Additional Advancement. Those employees who receive a rating that exceeds the rating "meets expectations" (or equivalent) may be eligible to receive an additional salary rate advancement for an increase of one additional rate in the same salary band, if available, above the initial rate advancement provided in subsection (b)(1) of this section. This additional advancement shall require the recommendation of the department head, or equivalent, and approval of the Mayor and City Council. (3)A rate advancement that was denied may be granted following a minimum sixty (60) day review period of the employee’s performance. (4)Notwithstanding the above, when it is in the best interest of the City, the City Council upon the recommendation of the Mayor may authorize an in-range adjustment to provide additional salary in instances of promotion, to provide for internal equity corrections, or for another reason deemed appropriate by the City Council. (c)Changes to Employee Classifications. (1)Downgrading an Employee’s Classification. Upon the City Council’s approval of downgrading a person’s classification to a lower salary band, the person’s initial salary rate will be set at the same rate in the new band that was in effect in the former salary band. In the event a person’s salary rate exceeds the maximum rate of the salary band to which 5415 Page 2 of 3 BMC 2.50.032 – Actual Salary Rate his or her position is assigned on the date of downgrading, his or her actual salary rate shall be frozen until such time as the maximum rate of the new band is equal to or greater than his or her actual salary and, at such time, the employee’s salary rate shall be set at the maximum rate of the salary band to which his or her position is assigned. (2)Upgrading an Employee’s Classification. If an employee’s classification is moved from one salary band to a higher band (excluding promotions), the employee’s salary rate at the higher band shall be set at the next rate which is higher than the salary he or she was receiving at the former band. Any additional rate advancements shall require City Council approval. The employee’s salary rate advancement date does not change. (3)Promotions. In the event an employee is promoted from one classification to a higher classification (one salary band to a higher salary band), the employee’s salary rate at the higher band shall be set at the next rate which is higher than the salary he or she was receiving at the former band. Promoted employees shall be eligible for a salary rate advancement upon completion of twelve (12) full months of regular (as opposed to interim) service at each rate in the new salary band, which shall be the employee’s new salary rate advancement date. In the event an employee is promoted to a management/professional classification outside of IAFF Local 437, said employee will maintain their current and future benefits covered in the collective bargaining agreement in lieu of the benefits covered in Sections 2.50.032 through 2.50.070. Any additional rate advancements shall require City Council approval. SECTION 2. 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 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 ____________________, 2021. _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor Page 3 of 3 BMC 2.50.032 – Actual Salary Rate ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ _________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. ORDINANCE NO. ________. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Fire\2020.03.24 BMC 2.50.032 Actual Salary Ordinance.docx MAYOR’S REPORT February 17, 2021 Photo courtesy of Port of Bremerton January Permit Activity 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $ 715,457 $5,766,652 $3,719,214 $1,854,944 $10,809,621 $6,330,211 $5,247,827 $5,371,214 January 2021 permit valuation was $10.8 million in construction approved (record breaking for a January). The permits submitted and currently under review as of January 31 totals $108 million. This includes permits for 155 new homes in Bremerton vs 38 new home submittals in January of last year. January 2021 –New Residential Construction Permits Kitsap County Bremerton Poulsbo Port Orchard 264 homes 155 homes 42 homes 10 homes Snow Response Equipment & Procedure Improvements Added in 2019 •One new Dump Truck with plow and sander •One ¾-ton Truck with plow for the Fire Department •One plow for existing ½-ton truck for City Facilities Added in 2020 •One 5/4-ton with plow for Wastewater •One new Dump Truck for Wastewater with Plow and Sander •City fabricated a 1000-gallon deicer applicator to fit on existing trucks •All snowplow vehicles were fitted with GPS to live stream deicer application, sand application, and plowing. Website updated. •Snow and Ice Procedures updated; available at BremertonWA.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6973/ Additions for 2021 •Two new sander beds for 5/4-ton trucks •Customer response worked through the weekend to respond & dispatch •Will update Snow and Ice Procedures to add Puget Sound Blvd (Bayside) Total Equipment Currently Available for Snow Response •Five 12-CY dump trucks with sanders and plows •One 5-CY dump truck outfitted with a 1000-gallon brine applicator •Four 1-ton dump trucks with sanders and plows. These trucks have replaceable beds; two beds were fabricated as brine applicators •Four small trucks with plows for Wastewater, Facilities, Parks & Fire Department City of Bremerton Snow Response February Snow Response Timeline: •2/8 -2/14 –deicer application; 10,000 gallons •2/12 –2/14 -sand application; 200- tons •2/11 all day –began 24-hr operations •2/11 midnight –began plowing with first snowfall •2/16 and ongoing -clean/maintain equipment, replenish stockpiles, repair broken c-curbs and signs, remove sand from streets and catch basins, etc. “Kudos to your city plow crews for being on top of the snow fall and clearing roads throughout the storm. We were able to open schools on time this morning with zero delays and regular bus routes. This was even more important than normal as today was the first day back to in-person learning for our 3rd, 4th and 5th graders across the district. Please pass along my gratitude and thanks!” –Aaron Leavell Ed.D., Superintendent, Bremerton School District “Thank the city of Bremerton for plowing our road…the main roads look great too!” –L.B., Bremerton resident “City of Bremerton keeping the roads clear in our community!” –M.J., Bremerton resident Quotes on Bremerton’s Snow Response Council District 3 Kevin Gorman