HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/2021 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 - Phone (360) 473-5280
* * * A M E N D E D * * *
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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
Members of the public are invited to join the Zoom Meeting by clicking on the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86219078564?pwd=SVVtSTQ2N3VNY2xtMDV1RkRoYjdXUT09
Or One tap mobile:
US: +12532158782,,86219078564#,,,,*408318# or +13462487799,,86219078564#,,,,*408318#
Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 312 626 6799
Webinar ID: 862 1907 8564
Passcode: 408318
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.MAYOR'S REPORT
3.PUBLIC RECOGNITION
4.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Claims & Check Register
B.Minutes of Meeting – August 18, 2021
C.Minutes of Study Session – August 25, 2021
D.Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bremerton Police Officers’ Guild; and related Budget
Adjustment
E.Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bremerton Police Management Association; and
related Budget Adjustment
F.Public Works Agreement with Petersen Brothers, Inc. for the Tracyton Beach Road Guardrail
Project
G.Ordinance No. 5428 repealing Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Carryout
Bags”
5.GENERAL BUSINESS
A.Consent for Extension of Provisional Appointment of Thomas Wolfe as Chief of Police
Continued on next page…
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing for 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application
B. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5429 amending Section 20.44.120 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code entitled “Drive-Through Facilities”
7. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
8. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
9. EXEMPT CLOSED SESSION
A. As allowed under RCW 42.30.140 (4) (b) to discuss Labor Negotiations or Proceedings; No
action anticipated…
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: N/A
Claims & Check Register COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: Legal Services
Presenter: Angela Hoover
Phone: (360) 473-5323
SUMMARY:
Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers:
1. Check Numbers 394777-394909 and Electronic Fund Transfers V33603-V33653 in the grand
total amount of $1,993,053.57
2. Regular Payroll for pay period ending August 15, 2021 in the amount of $926,670.70
3. Regular Payroll for payouts and corrections for pay period ending August 15, 2021 in the
amount of $9,570.24
4. Retiree Payroll for pay period ending August 31, 2021 in the amount of $48,879.73
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
4A
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting – August 18,
2021
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on August 18, 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 August 18, 2021 Meeting Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4B
2
CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
A virtual meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday,
August 18, 2021, at 5:30 PM with Council President Kevin Gorman presiding. Council Members
present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Quinn Dennehy, and Leslie
Daugs. Council Member Pat Sullivan was absent. Also present were City Attorney Kylie Finnell;
City Clerk Angela Hoover; Legislative Office Manager Lori Smith; and IT Manager Dave Sorensen.
President Gorman announced that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, and until the Norm
Dicks Government Center is open to the public, the City Council is conducting virtual meetings,
which will remain in effect until further notice…
MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Wheeler provided a briefing on the following topics:
Kitsap Public Health COVID-19 Update and Recommendations;
Nuisance Property Abatement Program; and
Waste Management Worker Shortage (affecting recycling and yard waste only);
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Comments were provided by Ki’aha Long; Jeff Coughlin; Melissa Watkinson; and Anna
Mockler; … A response to Mr. Coughlin’s concern about the lack of Emergency Room services
in Bremerton was addressed by Mayor Wheeler…
CONSENT AGENDA
4A – Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 394588 through 394776, and Electronic Fund
Transfers V33520 through V33602 in the grand total amount of $2,666,599.66; Regular
Payroll correction for missed hours for pay period ending July 15, 2021 in the amount of
$298.34; Retiree Payroll voided and reissued checks for pay period ending July 31, 2021
in the amount of -$472.42; Regular Payroll for pay period ending July 31, 2021 in the
amount of $928,982.68
4B – Minutes of Meeting – August 4, 2021
4C – Minutes of Study Session – August 11, 2021
4D – Contract with Chinook Properties, Inc. for the Construction of Reservoir 4 Fencing and
Security Improvements Project; and related Budget Adjustment
Questions and comments from the public were submitted on Item 4D by Anna Mockler, with
responses provided by City Engineer Ned Lever and Project Manager Katie Ketterer…
5:55 M/S/C/U (Goodnow/Simpson) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented.
GENERAL BUSINESS
5A – ORDINANCE NO. 5427 AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE
ENTITLED “MUNICIPAL UTILITIES”: City Engineer Ned Lever explained during a Power Point
Presentation that this update to the Bremerton Municipal Code updates language in Chapters
15.01, 15.02, 15.03 and 15.04. The primary changes are an increase in the term of a
Reimbursement Agreement from 15 to 20 years in accordance with an update to RCW 35.91.020,
and clarifications of when Stormwater General Facility Charges are required. These updates also
provide clarifying language relating to definitions, eliminate conflicting language, update code
references, and update language service connections.
Questions from the public were submitted by Anna Mockler; with responses provided by Mr.
Lever and Utility Operations Manager Wayne Hamilton…
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Page 2 of 2
6:06 Motion was made by Goodnow, and seconded by Daugs… Questions and comments were
provided by Goodnow, Daugs, Simpson, and Gorman; with responses provided by Mr. Lever and
Mr. Hamilton…
6:16 M/S/C/U (Goodnow/Daugs) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5427 amending Title 15 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Municipal Utilities.”
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Eric Younger referred to earlier public comments regarding the closing of the Emergency Room
in Bremerton, which has now created sub-standard medical services in the City, and again
brought up an earlier suggestion to eliminate the Certificate of Need.
Mike Simpson echoed the previous comments by Council Member Younger.
Michael Goodnow also expressed agreement with Council Member Younger’s comments;
welcomed volunteers to the next Forest Ridge Park Work Party on Saturday, August 21 from 9:00
AM to Noon; and also encouraged citizens to stay safe, and to please get vaccinated.
Quinn Dennehy will host his first District 4 Community Meeting on Sunday, September 26 at
noon; informed his constituents that he is willing to meet one-on-one upon request; and
encouraged for those citizens who can, to please get vaccinated to avoid the closing of small
businesses and keep our loved ones safe.
Leslie Daugs shared that former Council Member Lori Wheat is now settling in Norfolk, Virginia;
encouraged citizens to wear a mask and get vaccinated to be safe from COVID-19; and too,
agreed with the comments made earlier by Council Member Eric Younger.
President Gorman requested that Mayor Wheeler please reach out to City Lobbyist Bryan
McConaughy to schedule a presentation to the Council on what the City can do to improve the
current situation, specifically the lack of a hospital in Bremerton; and then established that until
further notice, Council meetings would continue to be held remotely, including the next Study
Session on August 25 beginning at 5:00 PM.
With no further business, President Gorman adjourned the Council Meeting at 6:30 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
LORI SMITH
Legislative Office Manager
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of September, 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 –
August 25, 2021
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of Study Session held on August 25, 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 August 25, 2021 Study Session Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4C
2
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, August 25, 2021
A virtual Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on
Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 5:00 PM, with Council Vice President Leslie Daugs opening the
meeting. Council President Kevin Gorman presided over the remainder of the meeting. Other
Council Members present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Quinn Dennehy,
and Pat Sullivan. Also present were Legislative Office Manager Lori Smith and IT Systems
Engineer Hans Nilsson.
President Gorman established that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, and until the Norm
Dicks Government Center is open to the public, the City Council is conducting the Study Session
via Zoom, and all Council Members and staff will be participating remotely… He further
established that the Agenda was amended to change the order of items under Section B.
The Study Session is open for the public to listen-in, but there will be no opportunities for input;
no action is anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the
Council, these items will be placed on the September 1, 2021 City Council Virtual Meeting
Agenda…
A. INFORMATION ONLY
1. 2021 2nd Quarter Federal and State Lobbying Updates with Jake Johnston and Bryan
McConaughy Information Only
B. BRIEFINGS on AGENDA BILL ITEMS
1. Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bremerton Police Officers’ Guild; and related
Budget Adjustment Consent Agenda
2. Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bremerton Police Management Association;
and related Budget Adjustment Consent Agenda
3. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance amending Section 20.44.120 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled “Drive-Through Facilities” Public Hearing
4. Public Works Agreement with Petersen Brothers, Inc. for the Tracyton Beach Road
Guardrail Project Consent Agenda
5. Ordinance repealing Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Carryout
Bags” Consent Agenda
6. Proposed Public Hearing for 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Application Public Hearing
7. Consent for Extension of Provisional Appointment of Thomas Wolfe as Chief of Police
General Business
C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
o Race Equity Advisory Committee Monthly Briefing – Chair Leslie Daugs
o Public Works Committee Monthly Briefing – Chair Eric Younger
o Finance, Investment & Parking Monthly Briefing – Chair Michael Goodnow
o Other General Council Business was briefly discussed.
D. EXECUTIVE SESSION
President Gorman announced that Council would meet for a 15-Minute Executive Session
City Council Study Session Minutes
Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Page 2 of 2
from approximately 7:03 to 7:18 PM to discuss “Pending Litigation” as allowed under RCW
42. 30.110 (1) (i) and that no action was anticipated… After a 10-minute extension, the Study
Session was called back to order at 7:29 PM…
President Gorman reminded the public that all meetings will be held remotely until further
notice, including the next regular Council Meeting on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:30
PM.
With no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
LORI SMITH
Legislative Office Manager
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of September, 2021.
______________________________
KEVIN GORMAN, Council President
ATTEST:
______________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
KG:AH:ls:cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the Bremerton Police
Officers’ Guild; and related Budget
Adjustment
Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: Legal – HR
Presenter: Dan Swedlow
Phone: (360) 473-5926
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the
City and the Bremerton Police Officers’ Guild (BPOG) resulting in the attached Collective Bargaining
Agreement for January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. The agreement includes a 2.5% wage
adjustment for 2021, a 2.5% for 2022, and a 2.5% for 2023. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
has been ratified by the BPOG membership. Council approval is required to implement this
agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the
Bremerton Police Officer’s Guild
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The projected additional cost of implementing this
three year Collective Bargaining Agreement is approximately $692,412 for the term of the
Agreement.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the
Bremerton Police Officer’s Guild for 2021 through 2023, and to authorize a budget adjustment in the
amount of $153,184, and further authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Collective
Bargaining Agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4D
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the Bremerton Police
Management Association; and related
Budget Adjustment
Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: Legal – HR
Presenter: Charlotte Nelson
Phone: (360) 473-5926
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the
City and the Bremerton Police Management Association resulting in the attached Collective
Bargaining Agreement for January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. The agreement includes a
3% wage adjustment for 2021, a 2% for 2022, and a 1.5% for 2023. The Collective Bargaining
Agreement has been ratified by the BPMA membership. Council approval is required to implement
this agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the
Bremerton Police Management Association
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The projected additional cost of implementing this
three year Collective Bargaining Agreement is approximately $183,282.40 for the term of the
Agreement.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the
Bremerton Police Management Association for 2021 through 2023, and to authorize a budget
adjustment in the amount of $34,616.31, and further authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the
Collective Bargaining Agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4E
Collective Bargaining Agreement
By and Between
City of Bremerton
and
Bremerton Police Management
Association
Tfff CITY OF PRIDE AHO OPPORTUNITY
January 1, 2021 through December 31 , 2023
ARTICLE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TO THE
LABOR AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF BREMERTON
AND
BREMERTON POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
JANUARY 1, 2021 -DECEMBER 31, 2023
TITLE PAGE
PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................................................... 1
ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2
ARTICLE3
ARTICLE4
ARTICLE 5
ARTICLE 6
ARTICLE 7
ARTICLE 8
ARTICLE 9
ARTICLE 10
ARTICLE 11
ARTICLE 12
ARTICLE 13
ARTICLE 14
ARTICLE 15
ARTICLE 16
ARTICLE 17
ARTICLE 18
ARTICLE 19
ARTICLE20
ARTICLE 21
ARTICLE 22
ARTICLE 23
ARTICLE24
DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................... 1
RECOGNITION ................................................................................................. 1
ASSOCIATION ACCESS .................................................................................. 1
SALARIES .......................................................................................................... 1
HOURS OF WORK ............................................................................................. 3
VACATION LEAVE .......................................................................................... 3
HOLIDAYS ........................................................................................................ 4
SICK LEA VE AND INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY ............................................ 5
OTHER PAID LEA VE ....................................................................................... 7
RETIREMENT BENEFITS ................................................................................ 8
INSURANCE BENEFITS .................................................................................. 8
UNIFORMS ........................................................................................................ 9
PERSONNEL PRACTICES ............................................................................... 9
EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE .......................................................................... 10
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ................................................................................ 10
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............................................................................. 11
SMOKING POLICY ........................................................................................... 12
POLICE OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS .......................................................... 12
MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................... 13
LIFE INSURANCE/MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT ................................... 14
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 14
ENTIRE AGREEMENT ..................................................................................... 14
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS .......................................................................... 14
TERM .................................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................ 16
PREAMBLE
LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE
CITY OF BREMERTON
AND
BREMERTON POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
JANUARY 1, 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023
This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 41.56 by and between
the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter known as the "City'\
and the Bremerton Police Management Association hereinafter known as the "Association" for the purpose
of setting forth the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment which shall be in effect
during the term of this agreement for employees included in the bargaining unit described in Article 2
below.
ARTICLE 1 ............. DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
1.1 An employee who believes that he or she has been the subject of unlawful discrimination on the
basis of political affiliation, age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, religion, national origin or
activity protected by RCW 41.56 shall seek relief through the City's Equal Employment Opportunity
Complaint Procedure or the appropriate state or federal agency charged with investigating such
matters and shall not process such complaints through the Grievance Procedure of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2 ............. RECOGNITION
2.1 The City recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the
purpose of negotiations concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment for all employees
in classifications set forth in Appendix A and such classifications as may be added to the bargaining
unit during the term of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3 ............. ASSOCIATION ACCESS
3 .1 Association business such as handling grievances and other legitimate routine matters may be
conducted on Police Department premises provided that such business does not interfere with Police
Department operations and is authorized by the Police Chief.
ARTICLE 4 ............ SALARIES
4.1 MONTHLY SALARY RA TES -Monthly salmy rates shall be paid as set forth in Appendix A
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Appendix A will be changed as necessary to reflect
the following:
4.1.1 The salary rates for Police Lieutenant and Police Captain will be set so as to maintain the
following differentials:
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page I of 15
4.1.1.1
4.1.1.2
4.1.1.3
The Police Lieutenant base salary at step 1 will be not less than seven point seven
percent 7.7% above the top step Police Sergeant base pay rate.
The Police Captain base salary at step 1 will be not less than 4.2% above the top
step Police Lieutenant base pay rate.
The percentage between each pay step is 2.25%.
4.1.2 Effective January 1, 2021, employees will receive a three percent (3%) wage adjustment.
The adjustment will be extended out three (3) decimal points.
4.1.3 Effective January 1, 2022, employees will receive a two percent (2%) wage adjustment. The
wage adjustment will be extended out three (3) decimal points.
4.1.4 Effective January 1, 2023, employees will receive a one and a half percent (1.5%) wage
adjustment. The wage adjustment will be extended out three (3) decimal points.
4.1.5 In the event that the Bremerton Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives a wage adjustment
in any year of their contract that exceeds the amount( s) above, then the Bremerton Police
Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same additional amount as long as they
meet any requirements for receiving the additional increase ( example: switching medical
plans). (This article will not apply to the 2021 through 2023 wage adjustments.)
4.2 LONGEVITY PAY: Longevity pay, which is a rate of pay based on the length of completed
continuous service with the City, shall be calculated on the individual employee's base salary rate
and shall be paid as follows:
Length of Continuous Service
0 through 5 years continuous employment
6 through 10 years continuous employment
Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment
Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment
Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment
Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment
Rate Per Hour
0.00%
1.25%
2.25%
3.75%
7.75%
9.00%
4.3 PAY RATE WHEN PROMOTED TO A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE
BARGAINING UNIT -At the discretion of the Police Chief, any employee who is promoted to
the classification of Lieutenant or Captain shall be placed at Step 3 or Step 4 of the pay band.
Placement shall be based on the employee's education and experience. Employees hired as a Police
Lieutenant or Police Captain through a lateral transfer, having not worked for the City of Bremerton
may be placed into Step 1.
4.3.1 The employee's advancement to the next step of the new pay band will be based on
the effective date of their promotion to the higher classification.
4.4 STEP ADVANCEMENT -Advancement from Step to Step will occur upon the positive
recommendation of the Police Chief and after completion of twelve (12) continuous months of
service in each step, based upon satisfactory attainment of established performance standards, and
Collective Bargaining Agreement-Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 2 of 15
overall satisfactory performance. Step increases may be withheld for a maximum of six ( 6) months.
In the event an employee is on approved leave of absence without pay, the employee's next wage
rate advancement date will be extended by the actual number of days the employee was absent on
such leave. The denial of a step increase is subject to the grievance procedure.
4.5 TEMPORARY/PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT TO HIGHER LEVEL POSITION -The
Police Chief or, in the absence of the Chief, the Mayor may provide a written directive to an
employee to perform all or a part of the duties and accept all or a pali of the responsibilities of a
higher level classification. The employee so directed shall have his/her pay rate adjusted for the
duration of the assignment as if he/she had been promoted to the higher classification provided,
however, that such adjustment shall be not less than 5%. Other benefits provided such an employee
through the provisions of this agreement shall not be affected, and no benefits of the higher level
classification shall apply to the employee during the assignment. This provision shall not apply in
situations when the Police Chief designates an employee to serve in an "Acting" capacity less than
30 work days during the absence of the Police Chief or a Captain (Division Commander) due to
vacations, while attending conferences, and other such usual and customary absences
4.6 DEFERRED COMPENSATION -The City will contribute five and one half percent (5.5%) to
their Deferred Compensation Plan.
4.7 In the event that the Breme1ion Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives a Deferred Compensation
contribution by the City in any year of their contract that exceeds the amount listed in Aliicle 4.6
above, then the Bremerton Police Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same additional
amount.
ARTICLE 5 ............. HOURS OF WORK
5.1 Employees shall work such hours as are assigned by the Police Chief which shall be at least forty
(40) hours per week, including paid holiday, vacation and sick leave time. In addition, employees
shall serve on emergency standby status during such periods as are assigned by the Police Chief and
are subject to emergency callback at any time. Employees covered by this agreement are salaried
and exempt from the ove1iime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
ARTICLE 6 ............. VACATION LEAVE
6.1 VACATION ACCRUAL -Employees shall accrue vacation time with pay for all regularly
scheduled work time including paid leave time pursuant to the following schedule:
PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT
Date of Hire through
5 years
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
11th year
12th year
Hours Accrued/Year
104 Hours
120 Hours
128 Hours
136 Hours
144 Hours
152 Hours
160 Hours
168 Hours
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
Januaiy 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 3 of 15
13th year
14th year
15th year
16th year
17th year and thereafter
176 Hours
184 Hours
192 Hours
200 Hours
208 Hours
6.1.1 In the event that the Bremerton Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives a Vacation accrual
in any year of their contract that exceeds the accrual schedule as shown in 6.1 above, then the
Bremerton Police Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same additional amount of
accrual.
6.2 VACATION ELIGIBILITY -An employee becomes eligible to take accrued vacation time upon
completion of six ( 6) months of continuous employment with the City. Vacation time must be fully
accrued prior to the time an employee takes any vacation time off.
6.3 VACATION SCHEDULING -Annual vacation leave shall be authorized by the Police Chief or
the Chief's designee. Personnel shall schedule vacation leave by mutual agreement of the employee
and the Police Chief or the Chief's designee.
6.4 MAXIMUM VACATION ACCRUAL -The maximum number of vacation accrual hours that any
employee shall be allowed to carry forward from one calendar year to the next is as follows:
Years of Continuous Employment
0 through Five (5) years
More than Five (5) years
Maximum Balance
160 hours
300 hours
Vacation leave may be accumulated up to a maximum of three hundred (3 00) hours as of December
31st, of any calendar year. Employees with more than three hundred (300) hours accrued as of
December 31st will be paid for any accrual over three hundred (300) hours, up to a maximum of 80
hours. Payment shall be made the pay period ending January 15th. Any accrual in excess of the 80
hours maximum payout shall be forfeited, and the vacation leave balance shall be reduced to 300
hours.
6.5 VACATION PAY-OUT -Upon the retirement or termination of an employee who has served six
(6) continuous full months of employment or more with the City or upon the date of an employee's
disability retirement, the accrued vacation hours of such an employee will be paid to the employee
in a cash lump sum payment.
ARTICLE 7 ............. HOLIDAYS
7.1 HOLIDAYS OBSERVED-The following holidays shall be observed by the City:
New Year's Day
Martin Luther King's Birthday
President's Day
Memorial Day
Juneteenth
Independence Day
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 4 of 15
Labor Day
Veteran's Day
Thanksgiving Day
Day after Thanksgiving
Christmas
In addition, any other holiday legally proclaimed by the Federal or State government, provided that
the City takes official action to have such holiday also observed by the City.
7.2 FLOATING HOLIDAY-Each employee shall be allowed one (1) additional holiday to be
observed by the employee on a day mutually agreeable to the employee and the Police Chief.
7 .3 ALTERNATIVE DAYS OF HOLIDAY OBSERVATION --If a holiday observed by the City
falls on a Saturday, the holiday will be observed on the preceding Friday. If a holiday falls on a
Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the following Monday. If the day a holiday is observed by
the City falls on an employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee shall receive an alternate
day as a paid holiday.
7.4 HOLIDAY COMPENSATION -An employee shall receive eight (8) hours of time off with pay
for each holiday observed by the City and for a floating holiday of each employee's choice.
ARTICLE 8 ............. SICK LEA VE AND INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
8.1 SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL-Employees shall accrue sick leave time with pay at the rate of .046154
hours (maximum of ninety-six (96)) for all normal hours of work including paid leave.
8.2 MAXIMUM SICK LEA VE ACCRUAL -Employees shall be able to accrue sick leave to a
maximum of one thousand two hundred and ninety-six (1,296) hours as of December 31st of each
year.
8.3 SICK LEA VE WORI( PERFORMANCE BONUS Employees who accrue over the 1200 hour
maximum may cash out 50% of the hours over the 1200 hours and receive this bonus on the pay
period ending January 15t11, and their sick leave balance will be reduced to 1200 hours.
8.4 SICK LEA VE INCENTIVE: An employee working five eight hour days per week who takes thirty-two
(32) hours or less of sick leave in any full calendar year shall have eight (8) hours added to his or her vacation
leave balance at the beginning of the following calendar year. An employee working four ten hour days per
week who takes forty ( 40) hours or less of sick leave in any full calendar year shall have eight (8) hours
added to his or her vacation leave balance at the beginning of the following calendar year.
8.5 SICK LEAVE RETIREMENT OR DEATH PAYMENT
8.5.1 An employee who retires from City service on a service retirement shall be provided a Sick
Leave Retirement Payment of thirty-five percent (35%) of the employee's accrued and unused
sick leave hours to a maximum of 35% of 1200 hours (a maximum total of 420 hours). The
Sick Leave payout will be placed into the employees HRA/VEBA program. The payout will
reflect the employee's regular hourly wage rate in effect at the time of retirement. In the event
of death of the employee, the payout will be paid to their designated beneficiary.
8.5.2 Employees who retire from City service on a service retirement with at least ninety (90) days
written notice shall be provided Sick Leave Retirement Payment at fifty percent (50%) of the
employee's accrued and unused sick leave hours to a maximum of 50% of 1200 hours (a
maximum of 600 hours), and such payment shall be made to an HRANEBA program.
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 5 of 15
8.6 SICK LEA VE USE -Sick leave must be accrued prior to use by an employee. Sick leave shall be
made available to each employee up to the amount of each employee's accrued sick leave balance
hours due to:
8.6.1 The temporary disability of an employee resulting from his or her personal illness or injury.
8.6.2 Providing care for: a) a child of the employee under the age of 18 when they have a health
condition that requires supervision or treatment; or b) a spouse, parent, parent-in-law or
grandparent of the employee who has a serious health condition or an emergency condition.
8.6.3 Attending medical, dental and/or oculist appointments as needed for preventive or
rehabilitative health care of the employee or the employee's children when such care requires
parental presence to supervise or authorize treatment.
8.6.4 Upon the birth or adoption of a child, a father may use up to three (3) days of accrued sick
leave or claim FMLA leave pursuant to Federal Law as may be amended from time to time.
8.6.5 Providing care for an employee's immediate family member as provided for in Section 8.5.2
when the family member has a health condition that requires the assistance of an adult caretaker
until such time as other care can be arranged.
8.7 NOTIFICATION OF SICK LEAVE USE -An employee who is absent or expects to be absent
from work due to causes specified in 8.5 above, shall provide notification as follows:
8. 7 .1 ROUTINE APPOINTMENTS -An employee who schedules a routine medical, dental, or
oculist appointment shall make every reasonable effort to schedule such an appointment at
a time which will cause the least interference with the employee's work hours and duties.
The employee shall give prior notice of the date and time of the appointment to his or her
immediate supervisor. An employee's immediate supervisor may request that the employee
reschedule routine appointments when, in the judgment of the supervisor, the scheduled
absence of the employee would unduly interfere with the operations of the Department. An
immediate supervisor shall not umeasonably deny an employee sick leave with pay for
routine medical, dental, or oculist appointments.
8.7.2 UNANTICIPATED ABSENCE -An employee who is absent from work or will be unable
to report to work as scheduled due to personal illness or injmy, or for other causes specified
in Section 8.5 above, shall promptly notify the department by telephone or otherwise by
0800 of the day of his or her scheduled work day.
8.7.3 SICK LEAVE DURING AUTHORIZED PAID LEAVE -An employee who becomes ill
or is injured during the employee's paid vacation may request the conversion of such paid
leave to sick leave with pay by promptly notifying the department of the illness or injury and
providing such information as is required by the department to verify the appropriateness of
such a conversion.
8.8 SICK LEAVE DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVAL-An employee who has been absent on
sick leave shall, within eight (8) hours after returning to work, submit such forms and provide such
information as are required by the Department to approve the use of sick leave with pay for the
absence. The Department may require an employee to demonstrate that he or she has sought
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bre111erton Police Manage111ent Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 6 of 15
treatment, taken appropriate precautions or otherwise affected measures to correct the condition
causing the employee's absence. Such demonstrations may take the form of personal statements of
the employee, medical examinations or certifications of appropriate professionals, or other methods
appropriate to the circumstances. The Department may require an employee to provide ce1iification
by a professional physician that the employee is sufficiently recovered as to be able to return to
work without posing a health hazard to himself or herself or to other members of the workforce.
Sick leave must be approved by the Department prior to payment. The Department shall not
umeasonably withhold approval of sick leave with pay from employees.
8.9 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEA VE FOR LEOFF II EMPLOYEES -An employee who
qualifies for and is included in the Washington State Retirement System commonly refened to as
"LEO FF II", and who incurs a work-related illness or injmy shall be provided with such
compensation as is made available through Workers' Compensation time-loss benefits as provided
by Washington State Law.
ARTICLE 9 ............. OTHER PAID LEAVE
9.1 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE -An employee will be granted up to five (5) days of bereavement leave
for attending funerals in the State of Washington and up to seven (7) days for out of state funerals
of members of the employee's immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined as spouse, child,
stepchild, mother, father, mother/father in-law, brother, sister, bother/sister in-law, grandparents and
grandchildren of both the employee and the employee's spouse. The first three days of bereavement
leave annually shall be paid at the employee's current rate of pay. Additional time off for
bereavement leave shall be charged against an employee's vacation/holiday, sick leave or
compensatory time leave balance at the option of the employee.
9.2 JURY DUTY, WITNESS LEAVE -An employee shall be granted leave of absence with pay for
the purpose of reporting to Jury Duty or if subpoenaed as a witness. Any juror or witness fees
received by the employee for the performance of such duties shall be assigned to the City.
9.3 MILITARY LEAVE -An employee who presents official orders requiring his/her attendance for
a period of training or other active duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces or the
State National Guard shall be entitled to militaiy leave with no loss of pay for a period not to
exceed twenty-one (21) work days annually. Authorized leave of absence for additional or longer
periods of time for assignment to duty functions shall be without pay and shall be granted by the
City. An employee on military leave without pay shall not accrue any leave benefits. An
employee receiving up to twenty-one (21) work days of training or serving on active duty shall
receive their regular pay and the amount received from the Federal or State government.(Pursuant
to RCW 38.40.060 as may be amended from time to time). During periods of military conflict,
employees are entitled to up to fifteen ( 15) days of unpaid leave before their spouse is deployed or
while their spouse is on leave from deployment. A person who received official orders and
perfo1ms military service for more than thirty-one days is no longer eligible to receive employer
paid medical/dental premiums. The employee can elect to self-pay both the employer and
employee share of the premiums for up to twenty-four months.
9.4 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE Pursuant to State Law, Domestic Violence Leave provides
additional leave rights to employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking, or who are family members of victims. It entitles employees to take leave to receive
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 7 of 15
medical treatment, attend legal proceedings, or address safety concerns arising out of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking as outlined in City Human Resources Policy 3-20-19.
ARTICLE 10 ............ RETIREMENT BENEFITS
10.1 Each employee shall be emolled in the Washington State Retirement system for which he or she
qualifies. Only for the purposes of federal income taxation, the gross income of each employee shall
be reduced by the amount of employee contributions to the respective retirement system, which is
picked up by the City.
ARTICLE 11............ INSURANCE BENEFITS
11.1 MEDICAL INSURANCE -The City shall make medical insurance coverage available to
employees and their dependents as follows:
• LEOFF Trust Plan F.
• Kaiser Permanente for Employees and Dependents; $20 Copay Plan/ $200 Deductible Plan.
• Another plan of substantially similar or better coverage
11.2 INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS -Payment of insurance premiums shall be made as
follows:
• Employee premium paid in full by the City. Employees shall pay ten percent (10%) of the
dependent premium for either of the two plans.
11.2.1 STIPEND IN LIEU OF MEDICAL COVERAGE -An employee who waives the right to obtain
medical insurance coverage through the City and who provides proof of credible coverage through
his/her spouse or other source shall be entitled to receive a stipend as follows:
Employee Only
Employee & Spouse
Employee, Spouse & 1 Dependent
Employee, Spouse & 2 Dependents
Employee & 1 Dependent
Employee & 2 Dependents
$150.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$300.00
$350.00
Employees shall be required to notify Human Resources, in writing, during open enrollment, of their desire to
waive medical coverage, or at any time during the year if a qualifying event occurs which would change their
status ( e.g. marriage, divorce, spouse loss of job or medical coverage). The payment will become effective the
first pay period of the next month following ratification of the agreement. Since both LEO FF Trust and Kaiser
Permanente underwriting requirements require a 75% participation rate, in the event that there is less than a 75%
paiiicipation rate due to employees waiving medical coverage, the City may cease offering the stipend due to the
adverse impact upon those insured.
11.2.2 In the event that the Bremerton Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives a Stipend by the City
in any year of their contract that exceeds the amount described in 11.2.1 above, then the Bremerton
Police Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same additional amount.
11.3 DENTAL INSURANCE -The City shall provide the same benefit levels as are contained in the
Washington Dental Service Plan F dental insurance coverage for employees and their dependents
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 8 of 15
and provide for full payment of insurance premiums. Any other plan must be approved by the
Insurance Benefit Committee.
11.4 DISABILITY -Employees who are covered by the Washington State Retirement System
commonly known as LEOFF II, shall enroll to receive Long Term Disability Insurance coverage
through the provisions of policies held by the City with Standard Insurance Company. The City
shall pay a maximum of $20.00 per month per eligible and enrolled employee toward premium costs
as of the first (1st) of the month following ratification of the Agreement. The remainder of all
premium costs shall be borne by the enrolled employee and shall be paid to Standard Insurance
Company through payroll deductions authorized by each enrolled employee.
11.5 INSURANCE COMMITTEE -The Insurance Benefits Committee shall be comprised off the
following members: Mayor or designee, Human Resources Manager or designee, Financial Services
Director or designee, one employee selected by the non-represented management and professional
employees, and one individual selected by each of the recognized unions. The committee shall elect
a chair and any other officers it deems appropriate.
NOTE: Due to continuing significant premium increases for Health Insurance coverage, the City will
be working with the Group Insurance Selection Committee to address cost containment measures for
coverages and employee contributions. The Union shall work with the Insurance Benefits Committee
to evaluate alternatives to the current insurance benefit plans. If an agreement is reached on an
alternative, implementation can occur as soon as legally possible.
ARTICLE 12 ............ UNIFORMS
12.1 PURCHASE OF UNIFORMS -Each police officer shall be furnished uniforms as designated by
the Chief of Police. Such uniforms shall be replaced on an as needed basis from the Clothing
Allowance Fund, as determined by the Police Department Administration Office. All uniforms
purchased by the Employer are to be and remain the property of the Employer.
12.2 The City will provide employees the sum of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) dollars annually for
the purchase of footwear. Employees will receive this payment the pay period ending Januaiy 31st.
ARTICLE 13 ............ PERSONNEL PRACTICES
13 .1 DEFINITIONS -For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this agreement, the following
definitions shall apply:
13.1.1
13 .1.2
Probationary Employee: An employee serving a twelve-month period commencing
upon the initial date of hire as a permanent employee during which the employee
may be discharged at the sole discretion of the City, consistent with applicable Civil
Service Rules and Regulations and without recourse to the grievance procedure.
Promotional Probation: A twelve-month period commencing upon the initial date
of a permanent promotional appointment during which a promoted employee who is
unable to perform the duties of the higher level position shall be returned to his or
her previous classification at the time of appointment at the sole discretion of the
Chief of Police consistent with applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and
without recourse to the grievance procedure.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 9 of 15
13.1.3 LEOFF II Employee: An employee who qualifies for and is a member of the
Washington State Retirement System commonly known as "LEOFF II ".
13.2 PROMOTIONS AND VACANCIES -All personnel reductions, filling of vacancies and
promotions shall be handled in accord with existing Civil Service Rules and Regulations and shall
not be subject to the grievance procedure.
13.3 INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES -The City shall provide legal defense and will pay all
legitimate claims, settlements, judgments, and associated costs for employees and their marital
communities named as paiiies or defendants in claims or lawsuits as a result of acts or omissions
made in the good faith performance of the City's business.
ARTICLE 14 .......... EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE
Employees shall be eligible to receive Educational Incentive pay according to the following:
14.1 Associate's Degree or equivalent (90 quaiier or 60 semester hours) Two percent (2%)
Bachelor's four percent ( 4%)
Master's Degree to be added if given to other bargaining units within the City
14.2 Degrees and credit hours earned shall be documented through official transcripts from accredited
colleges or universities. It shall be understood that for the 90 quarter or 60 semester hours to be
accepted, they must be courses required in the pursuit of an Associates or Bachelors degree from an
accredited college or university.
14.3 Educational Incentive pay shall not be cumulative and it shall be the responsibility of the employee
requesting educational incentive pay to provide the City with ce1iified transcripts of his/her hours
earned and/or degree(s) awarded. Educational Incentive shall be paid to the employee beginning
the next pay period following receipt of the documentation, and shall not be retroactive.
14.4 In the event that the Bremerton Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives an Educational Incentive in
any year of their contract that exceeds the percentages listed in 14 .1 above, then the Breme1ion
Police Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same additional amount.
ARTICLE 15 ............ MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
15.1 Any and all rights concerned with the management and operation of the Police Depmiment are
exclusively that of the City unless otherwise provided by the terms of this Agreement. The City has the
right, among other actions, to adopt rules' for the operation of the Department and conduct of the employees,
to discipline, suspend or discharge employees for cause, to assign work and determine duties of employees,
to determine number of personnel to be assigned duty at any time, to determine and introduce new work
methods or facilities to increase productivity for operation of the Department and to perform all of the
functions not otherwise expressly limited by this Agreement. Provided, nothing herein shall be construed
as a waiver of collective bargaining rights conferred on the parties by RCW 41.56.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 10 of 15
ARTICLE 16 ............ GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
16.1 DEFINITIONS
16.1.1 GRIEVANCE -A grievance is an allegation of a violation of the terms and conditions of
this agreement which is to be resolved through this Grievance Procedure.
16.1.2 CIVIL SERVICE APPEAL -An appeal is an allegation of a violation of the Civil Service
Rules which is to be resolved through the Civil Service Appeals procedure and is not
resolvable through this Grievance Procedure.
16.1.3 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE -An Unfair Labor Practice charge is an allegation of a
violation of the Washington State statutes governing public employment labor relations
which is to be resolved through the Public Employment Relations Commission's rules and
regulations and is not resolvable through this Grievance Procedure.
16.2 STEP 1 -An employee who believes that the terms and conditions of this agreement have been
violated shall first discuss the action giving rise to the belief with the Police Chief within fourteen
(14) calendar days of the date the action took place or within fourteen (14) days of the date upon
which the employee could reasonably have been expected to know of such action. The employee
shall have the right to be assisted by an authorized Association representative during this discussion.
16.3 STEP 2 -In the event that the Police Chief does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the
employee at Step 1 of this procedure, the employee shall reduce the grievance to writing and shall
state: the section (or sections) of this agreement which is alleged to have been violated; an
explanation of the grievance in detail, including dates, actions and such other information necessary
to a full investigation of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the grievance; and the remedy
sought. The employee shall have the right to be assisted by an authorized Association representative
in reducing his or her grievance to writing. The employee shall present the written grievance to the
Police Chief within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the employee met with the Police Chief.
The Police Chief will reduce his or her decision on the grievance to writing and shall transmit the
decision to the employee with a copy to the Association representative within fourteen ( 14) calendar
days of receiving the written grievance.
16.4 STEP 3 -In the event that the Police Chief does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the
employee at Step 2 of this procedure, the Association shall, on behalf of the employee, transmit a
copy of the original grievance along with a copy of the Police Chiefs written response to the Human
Resources Manager and the Mayor within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the Police
Chiefs written response. The Human Resources Manager and the Mayor shall consider the
grievance and may convene a meeting with the Association representative in an attempt to resolve
the grievance. The Human Resources Manager shall reduce his or her decision to writing within
fourteen (14) calendar days ofreceipt of the grievance and transmit the decision to the Association.
16.5 STEP 4 -In the event that the Human Resources Manager and the Mayor do not resolve the
grievance at Step 3 of this procedure, the Association may request arbitration of the issue by written
notification to the Human Resources Manager. The Human Resources Manager and the Association
shall meet within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date upon which the Human Resources Manager
rendered his or her written decision on the grievance and shall select a neutral arbitrator by mutual
agreement or through a mutually agreeable process.
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
Januaiy I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 11 of 15
16.6 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARBITRATOR -It shall be the duty of the arbitrator to
conduct a hearing on the issue or issues submitted by the pmiies for decision. The hearing shall be
kept informal and private. The arbitrator shall interpret the provisions of this agreement as they
apply to the issue or issues submitted for decision and shall not add to, subtract from nor in any way
otherwise alter nor recommend the alteration of the terms and conditions of the agreement in
deciding the matter. As soon as is practicable after conducting the hearing, the arbitrator shall render
a written decision which shall be binding upon the pmiies.
16.7 COSTS OF ARBITRATION -The expenses of the neutral arbitrator shall be borne equally by the
pmiies. Each pmiy shall singly bear all costs related to preparing and presenting its own case before
the arbitrator, including costs of witnesses and attorney fees. The party desiring a record of the
proceedings shall bear the cost of obtaining such record.
16.8 TIME LIMITS -Time limits established in this procedure shall be strictly adhered to but may be
waived by mutual agreement of the Association and the City. All procedures contained herein shall
be complied with as expeditiously as practicable.
ARTICLE 17 .......... SMOKING POLICY
17.1 The provisions of Human Resources Policy 3-50-05, Smoking Policy, will apply to employees
represented by Breme1ion Police Management Association., with the following exception:
17.1.1 Employees may smoke outside but must be at least twenty-five feet (25') from the entrance
to any Police Department facility, pursuant to State law.
ARTICLE 18 . . . . . . . . .. POLICE OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
The wide ranging powers and duties given to the Police Department and its members involve them in all
manner of contacts and relationships with the public. Of these contacts come many questions concerning
the actions of members of the force. These questions often require immediate investigation by superior
officers designated by the Chief of the Bremerton Police Department. In an effo1i to insure that these
investigations are conducted in a manner which is conducive to good order and discipline, the following
guidelines are promulgated:
18 .1 Internal Investigation Defined -For the purposes of this Appendix, the term "internal
investigation" means an investigation by or under the authority of the Chief of Police of activities,
circumstances or events pertaining to the conduct or acts of a City law enforcement employee. Such
investigation shall be deemed a "criminal investigation'' where it is suspected that such conduct or
acts are or may be the basis for filing a criminal charge against such employee, and shall be deemed
a "major investigation" where it is suspected that such conduct or acts may also or alternatively be
the basis for discharge, suspension or other discipline of such employee.
18.2 Employee Advised of Alleged Misconduct -Every employee who becomes the subject of an
internal investigation shall be advised at the time of any interview in connection therewith that, as
the case may be, (s)he is suspected of:
18.2.1 Committing a criminal offense.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 12ofl5
18.2.2 Misconduct which would be grounds for termination, suspension, or other
disciplinary action; or that (s)he may be disqualified for continued employment
with the Police Department. At the time of the interview such employee shall also
be informed of the name of the officer in charge of the investigation and the name
of the officer who will be conducting the interview.
18.3 Representation by Counsel -Any employee who becomes the subject of a criminal investigation
may have legal counsel present during all interviews of such employee. Such representation by
counsel shall be confined to counseling and shall not be authority for any participation by counsel
in the investigation.
18.4 Employee to be Informed in Writing-Recorded Interviews -In the case of any major
investigation and before any interview commences, the employee to be interviewed shall be
informed in writing of the nature of the investigation including information necessary to reasonably
appraise him/her of the allegations of any complaint and (s)he shall be afforded an opportunity and
facilities to contact and consult privately with an attorney of his/her own choosing before being
interviewed.
Such employee may request that the interview be recorded, either mechanically or by a
stenographer, and no questions shall be asked "off the record". Upon request, the employee under
investigation shall be provided an exact copy of any written statement (s)he has signed and a
verbatim transcript of any interview of such employee.
18.5 Interviewing Procedures -Interviews shall be held at a reasonable hour and preferably when the
employee to be interviewed is on duty unless the exigencies of the interview indicate otherwise.
Whenever possible, interviews shall be scheduled during the normal work day of the City.
Interviewing shall be completed within a reasonable time and shall be accomplished under
circumstances devoid of intimation or coercion. The employee being interviewed shall be entitled
to such intermissions as (s)he shall request for personal necessities, meals, telephone calls, and rest
periods. All interviewing shall be limited to the conduct or acts of the employee under investigation
which form or may form the basis for disciplinary action, termination of employment or the filing
of a criminal charge.
18.6 Intimidation of Employee Prohibited -No employee under investigation shall, as a guise for
obtaining such employee's resignation, be falsely threatened with dismissal or other disciplinary
action should (s)he refuse to resign, nor shall (s)he be subjected to abusive language or in any other
manner intimated or offered promises or reward as an inducement to answer questions.
ARTICLE 19 .......... MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATIONS
19 .1 An employee who cunently holds or obtains management certifications, or who successfully
completes equivalent courses, through the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
will receive additional compensation for each ce1iification as listed below:
Middle Management Certification
Executive Certification
One point seven-five percent (1.75%)
Two and one/half percent (2.5%)
Maximum additional compensation is capped at 4.25%
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 13 of 15
ARTICLE 20 ............ LIFE INSURANCE/MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT
20.1 LIFE INSURANCE -The City shall provide life insurance coverage in an amount equal to two
hundred thousand ($200,000) with a mutually agreed upon carrier. In the event that the Bremerton
Police Officers Guild (BPOG) receives Life Insurance in any year of their contract that exceeds
$200,000 then the Bremerton Police Management bargaining unit shall also receive the same
additional amount.
20.2 RETIREMENT MEDICAL SA VIN GS ACCOUNTS: The City shall contribute one hundred
dollars ($100.00) per month on behalf of each employee to a Health Retirement Savings Account
mutually agreed upon between the City and the BPMA. In the event it is determined that the $100.00
contribution causes the City to pay Cadillac taxes, both parties agree that this article will be opened for
negotiations. The parties will negotiate a reduction in the amount that is contributed to the HRA and a way
to compensate employees for the amount of the reduction.
20.3 The City shall contribute a lump sum of one thousand two hundred and twenty-five dollars
($1,225.00) this contribution will take place the pay period ending February 15th.
ARTICLE 21 ............ SEVERABILITY
21.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by operation of law or by any
tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or enforcement of any Article should be
restrained by such tribunal pending a final determination as to its validity, the remaining provisions
of this Agreement shall not be held invalid and shall remain in full force and effect. The Association
and the City shall immediately meet and attempt to renegotiate any provision found invalid.
ARTICLE 22 ............ ENTIRE AGREEMENT
22.1 The Association and the City acknowledge that each has had the unlimited right and oppmiunity to
make proposals with respect to any matter deemed a proper subject for collective bargaining. The
results of the exercise of that right are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the City and the
Association each voluntarily and unqualifiedly agree to waive the right to oblige the other party to
bargain with respect to any subject or matter not specifically covered by the Articles of this
Agreement during the term of this Agreement, except as mutually agreed upon.
ARTICLE 23 ............ CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
23 .1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with any other Resolution,
Ordinance, Policy, Regulation or Rule of the City, the provision of this agreement shall prevail.
ARTICLE 24 ............ TERM
This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 2021 contingent upon ratification by both parties, and
shall remain in effect through December 31, 2023, and may be extended thereafter by mutual agreement.
The City or the Association may request reopening this Agreement at any time within the six (6) month
period prior to the expiration date for the purpose of negotiating changes to be effective upon ratification
of the agreement by both the City and the Association.
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January l, 202 l through December 31, 2023
Pagel4ofl5
This Agreement is hereby submitted to the Bremerton City Council for approval. Upon the approval of the
Council, this agreement shall become binding upon the City, the Association and all of the employees in
the bargaining unit covered by this agreement.
APPROVED by the Bremerton City Council on the __ day of ______ , 2021.
Signed this ____ day of _____ , 2021.
CITY OF BREMERTON:
Greg Wheeler, Mayor
Charlotte Nelson, Human Resources Manager
ATTEST:
Angela Hoover, City Clerk
BREMERTON POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION:
Captain Randy Plumb, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kylie Finnell, City Attorney
Collective Bargaining Agreement -Bremerton Police Management Association
January I, 2021 through December 31, 2023
Page 15 of 15
POLICE MANAGEMENT LEOFF II -Effective January 1st 2021
APPENDIX A
3.0% Wage Adjustment
LIEUTENANT
2088 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
BASE 7. 7% Min Spread
ANNUAL 121,816.08 124 ,556 .88 127 ,359 .36 130 ,224 .96
MONTHLY 10,151.34 10,379.74 10,613.28 10,852.08
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,075 .67 5,189.87 5 ,306 .64 5,426 .04
HOURLY 58.34 59 .65 61 .00 62.37
MAX . DEF. COMP . 5.50% 279 .16 285.44 291 .87 298.43
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 123,338.88 126,113.76 128 ,951 .28 131,852.88
MONTHLY 10 ,278 .24 10 ,509.48 10,745.94 10,987.74
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,139 .12 5,254.74 5,372.97 5,493 .87
HOURLY 59.07 60.40 61 .76 63 .15
2.25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 124,556.88 127 ,359 .36 130 ,224.96 133 ,155.12
MONTHLY 10 ,379 .74 10 ,613 .28 10,852.08 11,096.26
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,189.87 5,306 .64 5,426.04 5,548 .13
HOURLY 59 .65 61 .00 62 .37 63 .77
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 126 ,384 .24 129,227.76 132,135.36 135 ,108.48
MONTHLY 10,532.02 10,768.98 11,011 .28 11,259.04
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,266 .01 5,384.49 5 ,505 .64 5,629.52
HOURLY 60 .53 61 .89 63 .28 64 .71
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 131,256.72 134 ,209 .92 137 ,229 .60 140,317.44
MONTHLY 10,938.06 11,184 .16 11,435.80 11 ,693 .12
SEMI -MONTHLY 5,469 .03 5,592 .08 5,717 .90 5,846 .56
HOURLY 62 .86 64 .28 65.72 67 .20
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 132,779.52 135,767 .04 138,821 .76 141,945.12
MONTHLY 11,064 .96 11,313.92 11,568.48 11,828.76
SEMI -MONTHLY 5 ,532.48 5,656 .96 5 ,784.24 5,914 .38
HOURLY 63.59 65 .02 66.49 67 .98
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
CAPTAIN
2088 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP4
BASE 4.2% Min Spread --,
ANNUAL 138,747.60 141,869.52 145 ,061 .52 148,325.52
MONTHLY 11,562.30 11,822.46 12,088.46 12 ,360.46
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,781 .15 5,911 .23 6 ,044 .23 6,180.23
HOURLY 66.45 67 .95 69.47 71.04
MAX. DEF . COMP . 5.50% 317.96 325 .12 332.43 339.91
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 140,481 .84 143 ,642 .88 146,874.72 150 ,179 .52
MONTHLY 11,706.82 11,970.24 12,239.56 12 ,514 .96
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,853.41 5 ,985.12 6 ,119 .78 6 ,257.48
HOURLY 67 .28 68 .79 70 .34 71.93
STEP 5
133,155.12
11 ,096.26
5,548 .13
63 .77
305.15
134 ,819 .52
11,234.96
5,617.48
64 .57
136,151 .04
11,345.92
5,672 .96
65 .21
138 ,148.32
11,512 .36
5 ,756 .18
66 .16
143,474.64
11,956.22
5 ,978 .11
68 .71
145,139.04
12,094.92
6 ,047.46
69 .51
STEP 5
151 ,662 .96
12,638.58
6,319.29
72 .64
347 .56
153 ,558 .72
12 ,796 .56
6,398 .28
73.54
2.25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 141,869.52 145,061.52 148,325.52 151,662.96 155,075.28
MONTHLY 11,822.46 12,088.46 12,360.46 12,638.58 12,922.94
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,911.23 6,044.23 6,180.23 6,319.29 6,461.47
HOURLY 67.95 69.47 71.04 72.64 74.27
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 143,950.56 147,189.60 150,501.36 153,887.76 157,350.24
MONTHLY 11,995.88 12,265.80 12,541.78 12,823.98 13,112.52
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,997.94 6,132.90 6,270.89 6,411.99 6,556.26
HOURLY 68.94 70.49 72.08 73.70 75.36
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 149,500.56 152,864.40 156,303.84 159,820.80 163,416.72
MONTHLY 12,458.38 12,738.70 13,025.32 13,318.40 13,618.06
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,229.19 6,369.35 6,512.66 6,659.20 6,809.03
HOURLY 71.60 73.21 74.86 76.54 78.26
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 151,234.80 154,637.76 158,117.04 161,674.80 165,312.72
MONTHLY 12,602.90 12,886.48 13,176.42 13,472.90 13,776.06
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,301.45 6,443.24 6,588.21 6,736.45 6,888.03
HOURLY 72.43 74.06 75.73 77.43 79.17
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
POLICE MANAGEMENT LEOFF II -Effective January 1st 2022
APPENDIX A
2.0% Wage Adjustment
LIEUTENANT
2080 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
BASE 7. 7% Min Spread
ANNUAL 124,396.08 127,194.96 130,056.96 132,983.28 135,975.36
MONTHLY 10,366.34 10,599.58 10,838.08 11,081.94 11,331 .28
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,183 .17 5,299 .79 5,419.04 5 ,540 .97 5,665 .64
HOURLY 59 .81 61.15 62 .53 63 .93 65.37
MAX. DEF . COMP . 5 .50% 285 .0 7 291.49 298 .05 304.75 311 .61
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 125,951 .04 128,784.96 131,682.72 134,645.52 137 ,675 .04
MONTHLY 10,495.92 10,732.08 10,973.56 11,220.46 11,472.92
SEMI -MONTHLY 5,247 .96 5,366 .04 5,486 .78 5,610 .23 5,736.46
HOURLY 60.55 61 .92 63 .31 64 .73 66 .19
2.25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 127,194 .96 130,056.96 132,983.28 135,975.36 139,034.88
MONTHLY 10 ,599 .58 10,838.08 11,081 .94 11 ,331 .28 11,586.24
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,299 .79 5,419 .04 5,540 .97 5,665 .64 5,793 .12
HOURLY 61.15 62.53 63 .93 65 .37 66 .84
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 129,060.96 131,964.72 134,934.00 137 ,970 .24 141,074.40
MONTHLY 10,755.08 10,997.06 11,244.50 11,497 .52 11,756.20
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,377.54 5,498.53 5,622 .25 5,748.76 5,878 .10
HOURLY 62 .05 63.44 64 .87 66 .33 67 .82
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 134 ,036 .88 137,052.48 140,136.48 143,289.60 146,513.52
MONTHLY 11,169.74 11,421.04 11,678.04 11,940 .80 12 ,209.46
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,584 .87 5 ,710 .52 5,839.02 5,970.40 6,104 .73
HOURLY 64.44 65 .89 67.37 68 .89 70.44
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 135,591 .84 138,642.48 141,762.00 144,951.84 148,213.20
MONTHLY 11,299.32 11,553 .54 11,813.50 12,079.32 12,351.10
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,649 .66 5,776 .77 5,906.75 6,039 .66 6 ,175 .55
HOURLY 65.19 66 .66 68 .15 69 .69 71.26
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
CAPTAIN
2080 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
BASE 4.2% Min Spread
ANNUAL 141,686.40 144,874.32 148,134.00 151,467.12 154,875.12
MONTHLY 11,807.20 12 ,072.86 12,344.50 12,622 .26 12 ,906 .26
SEMI -MONTHLY 5 ,903 .60 6,036.43 6 ,172 .25 6,311 .13 6,453 .13
HOURLY 68 .12 69 .65 71.22 72.82 74.46
MAX. DEF . COMP. 5.50% 324 .70 332 .00 339.47 347 .11 354.92
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 143,457.60 146,685.36 149 ,985 .60 153 ,360.48 156 ,810.96
MONTHLY 11,954.80 12 ,223.78 12,498.80 12 ,780.04 13,067 .58
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,977.40 6,111.89 6 ,249.40 6,390 .02 6,533.79
HOURLY 68.97 70.52 72.11 73 .73 75.39
2.25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 144,874.32 148,134.00 151,467.12 154,875.12 158,359.92
MONTHLY 12,072.86 12,344.50 12,622.26 12,906.26 13,196.66
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,036.43 6,172.25 6,311.13 6,453.13 6,598.33
HOURLY 69.65 71.22 72.82 74.46 76.13
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 146,999.76 150,307.20 153,689.04 157,147.20 160,682.88
MONTHLY 12,249.98 12,525.60 12,807.42 13,095.60 13,390.24
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,124.99 6,262.80 6,403.71 6,547.80 6,695.12
HOURLY 70.67 72.26 73.89 75.55 77.25
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 152,667.12 156,102.00 159,614.40 163,205.76 166,878.00
MONTHLY 12,722.26 13,008.50 13,301.20 13,600.48 13,906.50
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,361.13 6,504.25 6,650.60 6,800.24 6,953.25
HOURLY 73.40 75.05 76.74 78.46 80.23
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 154,438.08 157,913.04 161,466.00 165,099.12 168,813.84
MONTHLY 12,869.84 13,159.42 13,455.50 13,758.26 14,067.82
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,434.92 6,579.71 6,727.75 6,879.13 7,033.91
HOURLY 74.25 75.92 77.63 79.37 81.16
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
POLICE MANAGEMENT LEOFF II -Effective January 1st 2023
APPENDIX A
1 .5% Wage Adjustment
LIEUTENANT
2080 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP4 STEP 5
BASE 7. 7% Min Spread
ANNUAL 127,510 .08 130,379 .04 133 ,312 .56 136 ,312 .08 139,379.04
MONTHLY 10,625.84 10,864.92 11,109.38 11,359.34 11 ,614 .92
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,31 2.92 5,432.46 5 ,554 .69 5,679.67 5,807.46
HOURLY 61 .30 62 .68 64 .09 65 .53 67 .01
MAX. DEF. COMP. 5.50% 292 .21 298 .79 305.51 312 .38 319.41
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 129 ,103 .92 132 ,008 .88 134,978.88 138 ,016 .08 141 ,121 .20
MONTHLY 10,758 .66 11 ,000 .74 11,248.24 11 ,501 .34 11 ,760 .10
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,379.33 5,500 .37 5,624.12 5,750 .67 5 ,880.05
HOURLY 62.07 63.47 64.89 66 .35 67.85
2 .25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 130 ,379 .04 133 ,312 .56 136 ,312 .08 139 ,379 .04 142 ,515 .12
MONTHLY 10 ,864.92 11 ,109 .38 11 ,359 .34 11,614.92 11,876.26
SEMI -MONTHLY 5,432.46 5 ,554.69 5,679.67 5,807.46 5 ,938 .13
HOURLY 62 .68 64 .09 65 .53 67 .01 68 .52
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 132 ,291 .60 135,268.32 138,311.76 141,423.84 144,605.76
MONTHLY 11 ,024 .30 11 ,272 .36 11,525.98 11,785.32 12 ,050.48
SEMI-MONTHLY 5 ,512 .15 5 ,636 .18 5 ,762 .99 5,89 2.66 6,025 .24
HOURLY 63 .60 65 .03 66 .50 67 .99 69 .52
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 137,392 .08 140,483.52 143,644.32 146 ,876 .16 150 ,180 .96
MONTHLY 11,449 .34 11,706.96 11 ,970 .36 12 ,239 .68 12,515.08
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,724 .67 5 ,853.48 5 ,985.18 6,119 .84 6,257.54
HOURLY 66.05 67 .54 69 .06 70 .61 72.20
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 138,985.92 142,113.12 145 ,310 .64 148 ,580 .16 151 ,923 .12
MONTHLY 11 ,582 .16 11,842 .76 12,109.22 12,381 .68 12,660.26
SEMI-MONTHLY 5,791 .08 5,921.38 6,054.61 6 ,190.84 6,330.13
HOURLY 66 .82 68 .32 69 .86 71.43 73 .04
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
CAPTAIN
2080 Hrs Worked Per Yr STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP4 STEP 5
BASE 4.2% Min Spread
ANNUAL 145 ,232 .88 148,500.72 151,842.00 155 ,258.40 158,751 .60
MONTHLY 12,102.74 12 ,375 .06 12,653.50 12,938.20 13,229.30
SEMI -MONTHLY 6,051 .37 6 ,187 .53 6,326.75 6,469 .10 6,614 .65
HOURLY 69.82 71 .39 73 .00 74 .64 76 .32
MAX. DEF. COMP . 5.50% 33 2.83 340 .31 347 .97 355 .80 363 .81
1.25% COMMENCING 6 THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 147 ,048.24 150,356 .88 153 ,739 .92 157 ,199 .04 160,735 .92
MONTHLY 12,254.02 12 ,529 .74 12,811 .66 13 ,099 .92 13 ,394 .66
SEMI -MONTHLY 6 ,127 .01 6,264 .87 6,405 .83 6 ,549 .96 6 ,697 .33
HOURLY 70 .70 72 .2 9 73 .91 75 .58 77 .28
2.25% COMMENCING 11 THROUGH 15 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 148,500.72 151,842.00 155,258.40
MONTHLY 12,375.06 12,653.50 12,938.20
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,187.53 6,326.75 6,469.10
HOURLY 71.39 73.00 74.64
3.75% COMMENCING 16 THROUGH 20 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 150,679.20 154,069.44 157,536.00
MONTHLY 12,556.60 12,839.12 13,128.00
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,278.30 6,419.56 6,564.00
HOURLY 72.44 74.07 75.74
7.75% COMMENCING 21 THROUGH 25 YEARS CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL 156,488.40 160,009.44 163,609.68
MONTHLY 13,040.70 13,334.12 13,634.14
SEMI-MONTHLY 6,520.35 6,667.06 6,817.07
HOURLY 75.23 76.93 78.66
9% COMMENCING 26 YEARS AND OVER CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
SEMI-MONTHLY
HOURLY
158,303.76
13,191.98
6,595.99
76.11
2.25% Steps Between Each Pay Step
161,865.84
13,488.82
6,744.41
77.82
165,507.84
13,792.32
6,896.16
79.57
158,751.60 162,323.52
13,229.30 13,526.96
6,614.65 6,763.48
76.32 78.04
161,080.56 164,704.80
13,423.38 13,725.40
6,711.69 6,862.70
77.44 79.19
167,291.04 171,054.96
13,940.92 14,254.58
6,970.46 7,127.29
80.43 82.24
169,231.68 173,039.28
14,102.64 14,419.94
7,051.32 7,209.97
81.36 83.19
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
Public Works Agreement with Petersen
Brothers, Inc. for the Tracyton Beach Road
Guardrail Project
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: PW &U - Operations
Presenter: Dave Carter
Phone: (360) 473-5333
SUMMARY: This is a traffic safety improvement project to complete the final segment of guardrail on
Tracyton Beach Rd, approximately 560 feet. Staff advertised using the small works roster process;
only one bid was received.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Public Works Agreement; 2) Site Map; 3) Bid from Petersen Brothers Inc.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
Traffic safety improvements are budgeted in the Transportation Projects fund at $100,000.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Public Works Agreement for the Tracyton Beach Guardrail Project with
Petersen Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $69,313.29 plus any applicable Washington State Sales Tax
and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and
conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4F
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 1 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington
Municipal Corporation (“City”), and Petersen Brothers, Inc. (“Contractor”), whose mailing
address is 2008 E Valley Hwy, Sumner, WA 98390.
The parties agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following
services for the City: Install approximately 560 feet of Type 31 guardrail at Tracyton Beach
Road.
2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within 45
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
$69,319.29, 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. Retainage. The City shall hold back a retainage in the amount of five
percent (5%) of any and all payments made to contractor 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.
C. 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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 2 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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.
D. 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, th e 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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 3 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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 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,
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 4 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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 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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 5 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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
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, employees, 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 of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries
to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work by the Contractor, its agents, representative, employees, sub-consultants or sub-
contractors.
Before beginning 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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 6 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and
property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket
contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage;
explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and
C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and aggregate; and
B. 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.
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 6 th
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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 7 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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
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
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 8 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
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: Ronald G. Petersen Print Name:
Title: President Title:
DATE DATE
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON:
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
(360)
(360) (facsimile)
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT – Page 9 of 10
(between City of Bremerton and Petersen Brothers, Inc.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kylie J. Finnell
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
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
Ordinance No. 5428 repealing Chapter 6.20
of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Carryout Bags”
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: PW&U
Presenter: Tom Knuckey
Phone: (360) 473-2376
SUMMARY: In June of 2019 the City created BMC Chapter 6.20 titled “Carryout Bags” which
imposes restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags. In March of 2020 the State Legislature
created RCW 70A.530 that imposes similar restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags which
preempts BMC Chapter 6.20. RCW 70A.530 further prohibits municipalities from enacting local
carryout bag ordinances. For compliance with the RCW staff recommend the City Council repeal
Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code titled “Carryout Bags”.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5428
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. 5428 repealing Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code titled
“Carryout Bags”.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4G
Page 1 of 4
Carryout Bags
ORDINANCE NO. 5428
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, repealing Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled “Carryout Bags.”
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5368 creating
Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, imposing restrictions on the use of single-use
plastic bags by retail establishments; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature enacted Engrossed Substitute
Senate Bill 5323 in March 2020; and
WHEREAS, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5323, now Chapter 70A.530 RCW
imposes restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags by retail establishments and preempts
any local ordinance enacted prior to April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 70A.530 RCW prohibits a city or municipal corporation
from enacting any local carryout bag ordinance; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Carryout
Bags” is hereby repealed in its entirety:
Chapter 6.20
CARRYOUT BAGS
6.20.010 DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of the
ordinance codified in this chapter:
(a)"Compostable" means that the product will break down into, or otherwise become
part of, usable compost in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting facility, or in a
home compost pile or device, and has been certified as compostable by the Biodegradable
Products Institute or similar national or international certification authority.
(b)"Carryout bag" means any bag that is provided by a retail establishment at the check
stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure to a customer for use to transport or
carry away purchases such as merchandise, goods or food from the retail establishment.
"Carryout bags" do not include:
(1)Bags used by consumers inside stores to package bulk items, such as fruit,
vegetables, nuts, grains, candy, greeting cards or small hardware items such as nails, bolts or
screws; to contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish regardless of whether they are prepackaged;
Page 2 of 4
Carryout Bags
to contain or wrap flowers, potted plants or other items where dampness may be a problem; to
contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods; or to contain prescription drugs; or
(2) A bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating
other purchased items when placed in a recyclable paper bag or reusable bag, such as prepared
take-out foods or prepared liquids intended for consumption away from the retail establishment;
or
(3) Newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, tire bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags or
bags sold in packages containing multiple bags for uses such as food storage, garbage, pet waste
or yard waste; or
(4) Paper bags with a capacity of eight (8) pounds or less, that contain at least
twenty (20) percent postconsumer recycled material.
(c) "Recycled paper carryout bag" means a paper carryout bag provided by a store to a
customer at the point-of-sale that meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Has a material weight of larger than eight (8) pounds and contains an
average of forty (40) percent postconsumer recycled materials;
(2) Is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in a majority of households
that have access to curbside recycling programs in the City;
(3) Is capable of composting in a commercial composting facility; and
(4) Is clearly labeled with the minimum percentage of postconsumer content.
(d) "Retail establishment" means any person, corporation, partnership, business,
facility, vender, organization or individual that sells or provides food, merchandise, goods, or
materials, directly to a customer including home delivery, temporary stores, or vendors at
farmers markets, street fairs, and festivals.
(e) "Reusable carryout bag" means a bag made of cloth or other material with handles
that is specifically designed and manufactured for long-term multiple reuse and meets all of the
following requirements:
(1) Has a minimum lifetime of one hundred twenty-five (125) uses, which for
purposes of this subsection, means the capacity of carrying a minimum of twenty-two (22)
pounds one hundred twenty-five (125) times over a distance of at least one hundred seventy-five
(175) feet;
(2) Is machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or
disinfected; and
(3) If made of film plastic, is a minimum of at least two and one-quarter (2.25)
mils thick.
(f) "Single-use plastic carryout bag" means any bag that is less than two and one-
quarter (2.25) mils thick and is made from plastic or any nonrenewable resource.
(g) "Pass-through charge" means a charge collected by retailers from their customers
when providing plastic or recycled paper carryout bags, and retained by retailers to offset the
cost of bags and other costs related to the pass-through charge.
6.20.020 REGULATIONS.
Except as provided by BMC 6.20.030, all retail establishments within the City must
comply with the following regulations:
(a) Plastic Carryout Bags.
Page 3 of 4
Carryout Bags
(1) Single-Use Plastic Carryout Bags. Retail establishments shall not provide a
single-use plastic carryout bag to any customer.
(2) Reusable Plastic Carryout Bags. Retail establishments may provide to any
customer at the point-of-sale a reusable plastic carryout bag as defined in BMC 6.20.010(e)(3).
For each reusable plastic carryout bag provided by the retail establishment, it shall collect a pass-
through charge of not less than eight cents ($0.08) and such shall be clearly indicated on the
customer transaction receipt.
(b) Paper Carryout Bags. Retail establishments shall not provide to any customer at the
point-of-sale a paper bag that is not a recycled paper carryout bag as defined in
BMC 6.20.010(c). For each recycled paper carryout bag provided by the retail establishment, it
shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than eight cents ($0.08) and such shall be clearly
indicated on the customer transaction receipt.
(c) Reusable Carryout Bags. Retail establishments may make reusable carryout bags
available to customers through sale.
(d) Noncarryout Bags.
(1) Noncompostable Plastic Bags. Retail establishments shall not use or provide
to any customer polyethylene or other noncompostable plastic film bags tinted green or brown
for customers to bag products in stores.
(2) Compostable Plastic Bags. Any film bags meeting the definition of
compostable that retail establishments provide to customers for food or other products, such as
vegetables bagged in stores prior to checkout, must be tinted green or brown and shall be clearly
labeled "COMPOSTABLE," including language following the Federal Trade Commission’s
"Green Guides."
6.20.030 EXEMPTIONS.
No retail establishment may collect a pass-through charge from anyone with a voucher or
electronic benefits card issued under programs including, but not limited to, Women Infants and
Children (WIC); Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Federal Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as Basic Food; and the Washington State
Food Assistance Program (FAP).
6.20.040 VIOLATIONS.
In addition to any other violation set forth in this chapter, any violation of
BMC 6.20.020 constitutes a civil violation under Chapter 1.04 BMC for which a monetary
penalty may be assessed and enforcement may be required as provided therein.
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.
Page 4 of 4
Carryout Bags
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021.
_________________________________
KEVIN GORMAN, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Consent for Extension of
Provisional Appointment of Thomas Wolfe
as Chief of Police
Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: Legal-HR
Presenter: Charlotte Nelson
Phone: (360) 473-5926
SUMMARY: Pursuant to BMC 2.05.020, no provisional appointment(s) to a non-civil service
department director’s position shall extend beyond one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of
original appointment without the consent of the City Council. The Mayor is requesting consent of the
City Council to extend the current Chief of Police provisional appointment until such time as City is
able run an external recruitment and make a regular appointment.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
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 approve the extension of the provisional appointment of Chief of Police Thomas Wolfe until
the City is able to run an external recruitment and make a regular appointment.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
5A
From: Randy Plumb <Randy.Plumb@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 8:18 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Mike Davis <Mike.Davis@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Aaron Elton <Aaron.Elton@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Kevin Crane <Kevin.Crane@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Todd Byers <Todd.Byers@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: The Bremerton Police Management Guild agrees with Mayor Wheeler and supports Interim
Chief Wolfe as our permanent Chief of Police.
Bremerton City Council,
The Bremerton Police Management Guild agrees with Mayor Wheeler and supports
Interim Chief Wolfe as our permanent Chief of Police.
During a recent study session, you all discussed whether there were other individuals
within the Bremerton Police Department, specifically "lieutenants and captains," who
might be interested in this position. I spoke with members of our guild and confirmed
there is nobody else interested in the position at this time.
As you all know, the State of Washington has implemented massive police reform laws
(more than any State in the Country). To say the least, this has caused officers in this
State, including Bremerton, to carefully consider their careers and work extremely
cautiously at their jobs. The new legislation has also forced several very high-
functioning supervisors and officers from our department to leave this profession early
or go to law enforcement agencies in other States. I believe the unintended
consequences of the reform bills has caused very proactive and effective police officers
to change the way they police. They do not want to become a "test case" for how easy it
might be to be stripped of their peace officer certification, terminated from employment,
or worst yet, arrested (as we recently saw in Tacoma, Wa).
My point in the above paragraph is:
Now is not the time for a new police Chief outside our organization.
o Our officers are under enormous stress that the pandemic and these
reform bills have caused.
o Adding a Chief from outside the organization, who might be unfamiliar with
the reform bills, will cause additional and unnecessary stress on them.
o We currently have trust in and a relationship with Interim Chief
Wolfe. With an outside Chief, this can take a lot of time to establish.
o Interim Chief Wolfe understands these new laws better than most and has
been effectively leading us through one of the most challenging times in
policing.
During your meeting, most of you agreed that Interim Chief Wolfe is highly qualified to
take on this position. He has support from this community and support from his
staff. I'm afraid I must disagree that the best idea is for the City to conduct a nationwide
search for a police Chief, when we have a qualified candidate in place right
now. Frankly, that would be a waste of taxpayers' money (likely to the tune of 40-50
thousand dollars).
At the last meeting, I heard Council Member, Leslie Daugs, say she was likely going to
bring forward a motion for a vote to approve Mayor Wheeler’s selection of Tom Wolfe
for the Chief of Police position. I encourage that to happen.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Captain Randy Plumb
Randy Plumb, Support Services Captain
BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
360.473.5974 (Office) 360.340.0991 (Mobile)
Website | Facebook | Twitter
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing for 2022 Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Application
Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: Police
Presenter: Randy Plumb
Phone: (360) 473-5974
SUMMARY:
The Bremerton Police Department is applying for the local solicitation of the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). Since 2010, funding has been used to help fund the salary for the
position of the Community Resource Specialist. The grant will allow the City to continue the
Community Resource Unit and its crime prevention function and programs. The grant is from the
Department of Justice. No matching funds are required of the City. The total grant amount is
$18,035.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application
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 approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Application, 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
6A
From:Jeff
To:City Council
Subject:Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Date:Monday, August 23, 2021 9:47:27 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.
Does this grant still require the Bremerton Police department to be in compliance with US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
This is from wikipedia with references:
The United States Department of Justice announced in late July 2017 that more than two hundred
sanctuary cities will be disqualified from receiving Byrne grants if their noncompliance with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues.[4] Several cities challenged the change in courts,
and as of November 2018, cases in District Courts of New York, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois
have all found for the cities, with the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court affirming the Illinois district
ruling.[5][6] In February 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned
the New York ruling, making it possible the case will go to the Supreme Court. [7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Byrne_Memorial_Justice_Assistance_Grant_Program
Thank you ,
Jeff Campbell
Bremerton
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Randy Plumb
Greg Wheeler; City Council; Jeff
Tom Wolfe; Kylie Finnell; Joseph Sexton; Mike Davis; Jennifer Hayes; Mychael Raya; Brett Jette RE:
Response to Citizen Inquiry - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Jeff Campbell)
Tuesday, August 24, 2021 10:39:23 AM
Hi Jeff,
I understand that the requirements you are referencing have been lifted. Here is the link for your
review: https://www.ojp.gov/funding/explore/legal-notices
As a State law enforcement agency, we don’t enforce federal immigration laws.
Does this adequately alleviate your concern, or do you have any other questions? Let me know if
you do!
Thanks and take care,
Randy
Randy Plumb, Support Services Captain
BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
360.473.5974 (Office) 360.340.0991 (Mobile)
Website | Facebook | Twitter
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: August 25, 2021
Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5429
amending Section 20.44.120 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Drive-
Through Facilities”
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 1, 2021
Department: DCD
Presenter: Garrett Jackson, Pln Mgr.
Phone: (360) 473-5289
SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance
amending BMC Title 20.44.120 Drive-through Facilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 5429
Exhibit A: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions
Staff Memo & Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 6/21/21
Staff Memo re: Mapping: 8/31/21 Added
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. 5429 as recommended by the Planning
Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section Title 20 related to Drive-through Facilities.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
6B
Updated
1
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
ORDINANCE NO. 5429
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code
Title 20 related to Drive-through Facilities.
WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need
for modification has been identified; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton (“City”) has established a procedure for
amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (“BMC”),
which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, the State Growth Management Act, and other applicable
regulations and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a
workshop on the proposed amendments related to Drive-through Facilities; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021 for Drive-through Facilities amendments, a State
Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for
the proposed action with a comment period, and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, March 17, 2021 for Drive-through Facilities proposed Zoning Code
amendments were circulated to Department of Commerce and the State Agencies for the
requisite review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on June 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 held by
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2021, 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 August 18, 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
September 1, 2021 by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing
and considered all testimony prior to their decision; NOW THEREFORE,
2
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
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. Section 20.44.120 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Drive-through Facilities” is hereby amended as follows:
20.44.120 DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES.
(a) Intent. The standards of this section regulate the installation of drive-through facilities
to ensure their design, operation, and associated impacts can effectively be mitigated. The
purposes of this section is to permit a drive-through facilities only when they:
(1) Provide safe and efficient and on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
(2) Minimize conflicts between queued vehicles and traffic on adjacent streets
and sidewalks; and
(3) Reduce impacts on abutting uses, such as noise, visual, and light,
particularly to residential uses.
(b)(a) Applicability. Drive-through facility standards within this section apply to the
construction of new or modified drive-through facilities. Drive-through facilities are an
accessory to a principal use of a structure and therefore are only allowed when found in
association with a permitted use in commercial, mixed-use, or industrial zones, unless drive-
through facilities are expressly prohibited in the zoning districts regardless of the principal use.
(1) Exception. While generally prohibited within the neighborhood business
(NB) and DCC zones, drive-through facilities may be permitted provided the business has direct
vehicular access from either Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way.
(2) Drive-through facilities standards within this section apply to the
construction of new drive-through facilities, the addition of a drive-through facility to existing
developments, and/or the relocation of an existing drive-through facility on site.
(c) Procedure. All new or altered drive-through facilities shall be processed per the
underlying permit type per BMC 20.02. Approval of a drive-through facility may be granted
through either:
(1) An administrative Type I Director’s decision or concurrently with another
permit as regulated by BMC 20.02, when the proposed facility meets all criteria established per
BMC 20.44.120(e); or
(2) A Type III Conditional Use Permit per BMC 20.58.020 is required when a
proposal seeks alternatives to any of the criteria established per BMC 20.44.120(e). The Hearing
Examiner may approve alternatives to criteria presented in this section when the following are
met:
(i) Any proposal to modify drive-through facility standards shall not
undermine the intent of this section or that of the underlying zone.
3
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
(ii) Proposals seeking a drive aisle between a primary frontage and the
building shall demonstrate that all other site designs have been exhausted and found unworkable.
(iii) The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed alternative fully
screens neighboring properties, that the total amount of landscaping exceeds the total amount of
that created by adherence to standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
(iv) A public amenity shall be provided. Examples of public amenities
include: outdoor eating area, outdoor artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public
trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Hearings Examiner. Any
proposed amenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure and shall be
maintained for the life of the project.
(v) Conditions such as site orientation, fencing, buffering, parking
location, lighting, access, hours of operation, and others may be imposed as a condition of
approval if it is found they are necessary to mitigate identifiable adverse impacts and ensure
compatibility with nearby uses.
(d) Submittals. Applications shall include the following components; the Director may
modify these requirements based on the size, scope and complexity of the project:
(1) Vicinity Map. Showing the subject property in relation to all other
properties and major structures within a two hundred fifty (250) foot radius of the property;
(2) Site Plan
(i) All property lines, easements, fences, walls, signs, and other points
of reference.
(ii) Existing and proposed structures, pedestrian walkways, bikeways,
parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, and other areas and facilities of a public or recreational
nature.
(iii) Existing and proposed utility systems, drainage structures, fire
hydrants, and other infrastructure improvements.
(iv) An environmental summary, including such features as shorelines,
bulkheads, creeks, culverts, wetlands, steep slopes, and other "sensitive areas," etc.
(3) Landscape Plan. A plan conforming to BMC 20.50 and other landscape
requirements of this section. This information may be shown on the site plan or may be provided
in a separate plan;
(4) Parking Plan. A plan conforming to BMC 20.48 and other requirements of
this section. This information may be shown on the site plan or may be provided in a separate
plan;
(5) Applications may require a traffic impact assessment prepared by a
qualified professional for the drive-through facility installation. Reports shall demonstrate that
stacked vehicles do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic on abutting right-of-way, or
interfere with the circulation of pedestrians, traffic maneuvering, or other parking space area(s)
located onsite.
(e)(b) Site Design Requirements. All drive-through facilities shall comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Location. All efforts should be taken to locate the drive-through facility
towards the side and/or rear of buildings. Drive-through facilities shall not be located between
the building and the street frontage except in the following circumstances: when a site contains
more than one (1) street frontage the drive-through facility may be located between the building
4
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
and secondary frontage. Screening of secondary street frontages shall be a minimum of five (5)
feet wide and at least four (4) feet in height.
(i) Primary Frontage. A drive-through facility may be placed between a
building and the street frontage only when all other site designs have been exhausted and are
deemed unworkable by the Director. The drive-through facility shall be fully screened from view
of the fronting street through the use of features such as sight-obscuring fencing, walls, trellises,
and landscaping.
(ii) Secondary Frontage. When a site contains more than one (1) street
frontage the drive-through facility may be located between the building and secondary frontage
only when all other site designs have been exhausted and found unworkable. Screening from the
secondary frontage is encouraged, but not required.
(2) Stacking. All drive-through facilityies stacking lanes shall meet the
following criteria: include a stacking lane that provides room for a minimum of four (4) cars to
line up behind the drive-through window. For restaurant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall
provide room for a minimum of six (6) cars.
(i) Stacking lanes shall be a minimum of eighty (80) feet behind the
ordering board/window, where the order is requested, except for facilities where vehicles do not
routinely stack up while waiting for the services, such as ATM-only locations. For
restaurant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall provide room for a minimum of one-hundred-
twenty (120 feet).
(ii) After permitting and during operation, if the drive-through
facilities have negative traffic impacts on adjacent roads and/or businesses, the City may require
additional traffic controls at the businesses’ expense to alleviate the negative impacts. This could
include temporary or permanent solutions.
(3) Design. The drive-through lane(s) shall be designed as a dedicated lane,
physically separated from parking areas and internal parking circulation aisles in order to
enhance pedestrian safety and provide screening from adjacent properties and right-of-way. A
combination of two (2) of the following shall be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane(s):
(i) Landscaped strips, islands, or berms that are a minimum of three (3)
feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in size are required in addition to all other required
landscaping areas. Said landscaped areas shall include a mix of ground covers and shrubs that act
as a barrier between the drive-through lane and adjacent properties, right-of-way, and parking
area;
(ii) Hedges, decorative walls, fencing, or trellises that act as a visual
barrier between the drive-through lane(s) and adjacent properties, right-of-way and parking
areas;
(iii) Decorative pavement, alternative materials (bricks, stamped
concrete), or other durable ground treatment that clearly separates the drive-through lane(s) from
other driving and parking areas on site that will withstand heavy traffic conditions found in
association with drive-through lanes. Paint striping does not meet this requirement.
(iv) When drive-thru facilities are open and other pedestrian-oriented
customer entrances to the businesses are unavailable, they must serve customers using other
modes rather than vehicular. This may be accomplished by online ordering, pickup areas or
similar. Such pickup areas shall be illustrated on the submitted site plan.
(4) Signage.
5
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
(i) Each ordering location shall have a maximum of (1) one menu board.
One (1) additional menu board may be placed adjacent to the stacking lane for patrons waiting
behind the ordering station. Each menu board sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet and
have a maximum height of seven (7) feet.
(ii) Menu boards shall be located in a landscaped strip or island no
smaller than three (3) feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in total size. This landscaping area shall
be in addition to all other required landscaping. The menu board(s) shall be oriented away from
public streets and be intended for viewing by drive-through patrons only. Screening of the menu
board may be required when the board is located adjacent to the right-of-way or neighboring
properties. Screening shall ensure the board is not readable from the surrounding properties or
street.
(5) Pedestrian Features. In order to enhance safe pedestrian access, designated
walkways from all on-site parking areas and from the public sidewalk to a building entry shall be
provided as follows:
(i) Walkways shall be a minimum five (5) feet in width, clearly marked
and easily distinguished from driving surfaces by using a combination of landscaping strips or
islands that delineate the pedestrian walkways; and
(ii) Walkways shall include at least one (1) of the following treatments:
decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete or raised walkways with alternative materials (such
as brick, cobblestone, and decorative pavers) to clearly indicate the safe walking route.
Walkways through heavy traffic areas such as the drive-through must be made of durable
materials able to withstand heavy traffic conditions.
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
6
Title 20 BMC Updates – Drive-through Facilities
Approved this ________ day of _____________________, 2021.
_________________________________
GREGORY WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
Proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to Drive-through Facilities.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Project Description:
The proposed amendment includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.44.120, Drive-
through Facilities, as follows:
A. Expands zones where Drive-through Facilities are permitted.
B. Standardizes permitting procedures and submittal requirements.
C. Revises site design requirements.
2. Procedural History:
2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: February 22, 2021
2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: May 17, 2021
2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 17, 2021
2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: June 11, 2021
2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 21, 2021
3. Public and Agency Comment:
3.1 At the workshop held on February 22, 2021, one public comment were received:
3.1.01 Christopher Lux, expressed support.
4. SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on May 17, 2021, to date no comments
or appeals have been filed.
5. Consistency:
Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with
modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met.
(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.
Exhibit A
2
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 Policy LU1(A): Designate neighborhoods, communities, and centers throughout the
City and encourage the implementation of design guidelines for new development
and redevelopment that complement the designated purpose and scale.
o LU1-Cen(A): Development regulations should encourage pedestrian oriented mixed-
use design in Centers and address such issues as:
(1) Locating buildings or features in the core of the Center at sidewalk edge,
(2) Providing windows and other architectural features that foster pedestrian
interest along street fronts,
(3) Adopting sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale,
(4) Encouraging and/or requiring architectural features that are of a scale and
type appropriate for viewing by pedestrians at the building front and immediately
nearby, and
(5) Development projects should be encouraged to provide amenities such as
street furniture, street trees, small public spaces and plazas, etc.
o LU1-Cen(E): Consider the existing built environment when creating development
regulations
o LU2-Cen(C): Provide incentives and flexibility that encourage and enable
development in Centers, including alternative parking options like payment in lieu of
parking spaces.
(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
To: City Council
From: Garrett Jackson
Date: September 1. 2021
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Drive-through Facilities
SUMMARY
City Council will be holding a public hearing on an Ordinance that amends the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) related to Drive-through Facilities. The revisions expand the geographic
areas where Drive-through Facilities are permitted, add increased provisions for traffic safety,
and add a more inclusive public process in some instances .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission approved the proposed amendments with a vote of 5 to 2 at a Public
Hearing held on June 21, 2021. Dissenting Commissioners were concerned that additional
Drive-through Facilities might lead to increased traffic incidents with pedestrians and bicyclists,
potential greenhouse gas emissions, and requested Staff notify surrounding residential
properties to participate in the upcoming City Council Hearing. Staff could find no evidence that
drive-through facilities increased traffic incidents with pedestrians/bicyclists more than other
permitted uses in effected zones. Staff noted in materials provided to the Planning Commission
that technological advances in vehicles and drive-through facility processing, as well as the
relatively small geographic area effected by the proposed amendments, would likely not result in
a significant increase in greenhouse emissions. Per the request of the Planning Commission, an
invitation to the City Council Hearing was mailed on August 15th to all property owners within
300 feet of effected zones. Minutes from the June 21, 2021 Public Hearing are provided
following this memo.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 2
DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES
There are many Drive-through Facilities (i.e.drive-throughs) located throughout the City,
however, there are remaining areas where these developments are currently prohibited by the
zoning code. The following will explain the municipal regulatory background and purpose of
drive-throughs and outline potential additions being considered by the City to the Bremerton
Municipal code Title 20, also known as the Zoning Code.
The Zoning Code entry regarding drive-throughs in 2005 read in its entirety as follows, “Ancillary
drive-through lanes as defined by BMC 20.42.020 may be permitted in conjunction with an
allowable principal use, unless drive-through lanes are expressly prohibited in the zone district.”
Code updates in 2013 and 2016 added required features for pedestrian safety, design criteria,
and loosened prohibitions on zones where these facilities were prohibited. While some of the
zones and terminology have changed since 2005, t he purpose of the proposed Zoning Code
Amendments are to further loosen prohibitions on where drive-throughs may be located, provide
enhanced traffic safety measures, ensure practical design elements, and to continue to utilize
drive-throughs as an accessory use only.
Expanding Permitted Zones
If you live in Bremerton, or are traveling
through, chances are you’ve seen or visited
one of the City’s drive-through locations for
coffee, restaurants, pharmacies, or banking.
While the Department of Community
Development does not specifically track drive-
throughs, Staff can account for at least 38
locations in the City; the image to the right illustrates a selection of existing drive -throughs and
zones they are located in. Currently, the only zones that prohibit drive-throughs are the
Neighborhood Business (NB) zone, portions of the District Center Core (DCC) zone, and two
zones within the Downtown Subarea Plan, which are the Downtown Waterfront (DW-DSAP) and
Pedestrian Oriented Mixed-Use (POMU-DSAP) zones. Drive-through prohibitions within the NB
zone, and the partial prohibition within portions of the DCC zone, are proposed to be removed to
provide a more equitable approach to where these facilities may be located. The two zones
within the Downtown Subarea Plan which specifically call out drive-throughs as prohibited uses
are not proposed to change with these amendments.
Properties that front Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are
the portions of the DCC zone that currently allow drive-
throughs. This also points to the somewhat limited
expansion of the proposed amendments in some
locations, as much of the DCC zone either already
permits drive-throughs or are currently being developed
without them. The image to the right illustrates the
Wheaton/Riddell District Center, which is bisected by
Wheaton Way. The yellow hatched areas indicate
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 3
properties that are already entitled to develop a drive -through under the
existing code, the green hatch areas indicate lots that are currently under
development, and yellow circles indicate existing drive-throughs.
Properties currently being developed are residential projects that would
be very unlikely to develop future drive-throughs. Of the remaining lots,
three are vacant and would be the most likely to potentially develop drive-
throughs in the future under the proposed code provisions.
While the image on the previous page was provided to illustrate the
limited scale of the proposed amendments, it also illustrates a potential
lack of equity among neighboring properties as only parcels fronting
Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are excluded from the drive-through
prohibition. This potential lack of equity is not limited to whether a
property is located on a particular street frontage. As the zoning code has
changed over time, some drive-throughs already exist in zones where
they are currently prohibited. The property owner at 2101 Burwell Place, as seen in the adjacent
image on the corner of Burwell Street & Naval Avenue, has been interested in developing a
drive-through on their parcel but they are prohibited because the lot is located in the NB zone.
The property owner has relayed frustration as the parcel directly to the north currently operates
a grandfathered drive-through. This potential disparity can lead to real
financial impacts. As relayed in the June 21, 2021 Planning Commission
Hearing Packet, there can be substantial financial benefits to having a
drive-through as some businesses have noted an immediate increase in
sales once a drive-through is added to an existing location, landlords are
able to charge 10-20% more in rent for properties with drive-throughs,
and while some businesses struggled during the pandemic drive-through
locations have thrived. As drive-throughs are utilized by a variety of
different business types, this likely leads to a competitive disadvantage to
prohibited properties.
Design Features
It is not the intent of the proposed code amendments to provide enhanced
business opportunities at the expense of required design features. As the
City encourages development that promotes pedestrian activity in
commercial zones, criteria of individual zones requiring pedestrian
features will not be altered with these proposed amendments. Examples
of such design features are: requiring buildings to be constructed near the
sidewalk, requiring parking and access not to be located between the
building and the street frontage, aesthetic requirements for buildings that
add interest from the street, and other features. The images to the right
provides two examples of differing site designs. The example above
illustrates a constructed drive-through that would not meet design
requirements as the building is completely surrounded by drive-aisles,
setback from the street, and the parking between the building and street.
The Example below would likely meet design requirements as the building
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 4
is located at the sidewalk, there largely are no drive aisles separating the parking from the
structure, and generally provides a good non-autocentric version of drive-through development.
Enhanced Safety Measures
Previous amendments to the code have added features to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
vehicles, and the proposed code amendments would further that work. In order to assist in the
review of safe traffic conditions, the proposed code adds a provision allowing the City to require
a traffic impact assessment prepared by a qualified professional which demonstrates the safe
circulation of pedestrians and vehicles both on a nd off site. As conditions created by
development can sometimes be speculative, the proposed code also permits the City to require
potential traffic mitigation measures after the permitting process has been completed in order to
alleviate potential unforeseen unsafe conditions. Finally, the City recognizes that every iteration
of drive-through development may not be able to meet prescriptive requirements, and in such
cases where applicants may seek alternatives to prescriptive requirements, the City propose s to
provide a more robust public review through the Hearings Examiner permitting process. This will
ensure that the public has an opportunity to review project plans, and provide feedback on
proposed traffic safety measures. All-in-all, these added provisions will help ensure that safe
traffic conditions continue with the development of individual Drive-through Facilities. It should
be noted that under both the existing and proposed code, it is likely that some properties will not
be able to meet the dimensional requirements to ensure sufficient site safety, and accordingly
will not be able to be provided with permit approva l. Some properties are likely too small, or
contain preexisting structures/development situated in such a way as to render the property
nonconductive to adding a drive-through.
Accessory Use
The proposed amendments are not intended to change the accessory nature of drive-throughs.
While there are plenty of examples of drive-through coffee stands, ATMs, etc. that offer no
interior service or interior/exterior seating options, these structures also provide little opportunity
for community building. Whether it’s a coffee shop, fast-food restaurant, or other similar
business, public seating can provide a space to gather and build relationships outside of home
and work. Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg touted the need for communities to have a third-
place for people to gather easily, inexpensively, regularly, and pleasurably; a “place on the
corner,” real life alternatives to television, easy escapes that do not necessitate getting into an
automobile. While having a 100% drive-through, without interior/exterior seating or services,
may potentially be an attractive business model, it would not provide citizens and visitors a
place to gather and enjoy the City and so it not proposed for change.
APPROVED
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
June 21, 2021
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Staff Present
Chair Wofford (arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Vice Chair Tift
Commissioner Flemister
Commissioner Coughlin
Commissioner Mosiman
Commissioner Pedersen
Commissioner Rich
Commissioners Excused
None
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Garrett Jackson, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Others Present
CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2021, AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Vice Chair Tift invited comments from citizens on items that were not on the agenda. There were none.
Public Hearing: Amendments to the Zoning Code Related to Drive-Thru Facilities
Mr. Jackson explained that the Commission’s responsibility is to conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony,
deliberate and then make a recommendation to the City Council. He reviewed that they could recommend approval as is or as
modified by the Commission, or they could recommend denial. They could also continue the hearing to a future meeting.
.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 2 of 9
Mr. Jackson referred to the proposed code amendments that were provided as Attachment A of the Staff Report. He advised
that the proposed amendments would:
•Expand the zones where drive-thru facilities are permitted to include all Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial zones,
unless drive-thru facilities are specifically prohibited in the zone.
•Add a “Submittals” Section that formalizes what documents need to be turned in with the permit. It includes a new
requirement to potentially require a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by a qualified professional , certifying that
the plans are safe for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. This assessment is currently perform ed by the Public Works
Department. The proposed amendment would not change that process, but it provides the Public Works Department
an additional tool to help assess specific sites.
•Revise the “Procedures” Section to potentially require a Hearing Examiner level decision in cases where the applicant
doesn’t meet the prescriptive requirements of the code. This would add a more scrutinized public process for any
proposal seeking alternatives to the code.
•Add the potential for post-permit issuance traffic mitigation. If problems come after a drive-thru is installed and
mitigation isn’t included with the permit, this provision ensures that the traffic problems can be handled at a later date
after permit issuance.
Mr. Jackson reviewed that, at a previous workshop, staff provided examples of undesirable drive-thru facilities. The examples
illustrated the need to avoid situations where the stacking lanes completely surround the building and there is no safe acces s
for pedestrians to enter the business, wher e pedestrian entrances are directly after the drive-thru window where cars receive
food, and where cars in the parking lot back directly into the stacking lanes.
Mr. Jackson shared an example of a drive-thru facilities that would meet the City’s code requirements. The building is located
close to the street and there are no drive-thru lanes between the building and the roadway. The drive -thru is not the primary
focus of the building, and access to the building is provided from all parking areas with on ly one area crossing the drive-thru
lanes at the front of the stacking lane.
Mr. Jackson explained that a drive-thru helps ensure that a business’s bottom line is maintained by providing that third place
for people to obtain services. It adds an extra tool for businesses to continue to maintain their service levels. A drive -thru can
be particularly helpful for citizens with mobility impairments, and it offers a convenience for customers. Typical businesses
that provide drive-thru service include restaurants, pharmacies, banking, and coffee shops. Drive-thru service is a private
decision made by individual businesses based on whether or not it can help their bottom line. He referenced two articles that
indicate, “Landlords are able to charge 10-20% higher rents for properties with drive-thru facilities,” and “Drive-thru facilities
make accessibility for customers significantly more convenient, and in turn, increase sales as much as 70% for some national
chains.” Mr. Jackson reported that the majority of recent commercial development has included a drive -thru component
(banks, pharmacies, coffee shops, restaurants, etc. As more proposals come in, that trend will likely continue.
Mr. Jackson recalled that, at a previous meeting, a commissioner requested information on the existing drive -thru facilities
throughout the City. Although permitting information is spotty, his calculation includes 3 pharmacies, 8 banks, 2 car washes
and 26 restaurants.
Mr. Jackson advised that, as the proposed code amendments would allow drive-thru facilities in all Commercial, Mixed-Use
and Industrial zones, it would alter where drive-thru facilities are currently prohibited. For example:
•Neighborhood Business Zones. The current code only allows drive-thru facilities in the Neighborhood Business and
District Center zones if the property is located off of Kitsa p Way or Wheaton Way. However, there are no
Neighborhood Business zones located off of these two streets, so the use is effectively prohibited at this time. The
proposed amendments would allow drive-thru facilities in all Neighborhood Business zones, which are intended to
serve the neighborhoods they are located in. He briefly reviewed where the Neighborhood Business zones are located
and described the current development, noting that there are already some drive-thru facilities.
.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 3 of 9
•Downtown Regional Center. Currently, there are two zones in the Downtown Regional Center that specifically
prohibit drive-thru facilities: Pedestrian-Oriented Mixed-Use Zone and Downtown Waterfront. There are currently
three drive-thru facilities in the center, all at banks.
•District Centers. The current code allows drive-thru facilities in District Centers that are located off of Kitsap Way
or Wheaton Way. He shared a map of the Charleston District Center, noting the properties that front on Kitsap Way
that could potentially have a drive-thru. Some are located on the cliff side of Kitsap Way where a drive-thru would
be unfeasible. Because the code only allows drive-thru facilities on Kitsap Way, the use becomes somewhat arbitrary
at the point where Kitsap Way transitions into 6th Street. He reviewed the other District Centers, noting how properties
are currently developed, where existing drive-thru facilities are located, and which properties are likely to redevelop
with and without drive-thru facilities.
Mr. Jackson summarized that the examples were provided to show the limited amount of area that could potentially house a
new drive-thru facility. Most of the properties have already been developed, so most of the new drive-thru facilities would be
add-ons to existing development. He noted that many of the properties, particularly in the Neighborhood Business zone, would
be too small to accommodate all of the code requirements of a drive-thru. Expanding the area where drive-thru facilities are
allowed would not automatically entitle individual properties to have one. Because these zones are intended for pedestrian-
oriented uses, the pedestrian, bicycle and pedestrian safety requirements would still preclude a lot of properties from having a
drive-thru.
Mr. Jackson further summarized that the proposed amendment would expand the existing code to allow drive-thru uses in the
Mixed Use, Commercial and Industrial zones. The additional “Submittal” Section would formalize the submittal process, and
the “Procedures” Section would be revised to potentially elevate the decision to the Hearing Examiner when the basic
prescriptive code criteria cannot be met. There would also be potential for post-permit issuance of traffic mitigation.
Chair Wofford joined the meeting at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Erin Harris, Bremerton, observed that, in other jurisdictions, areas that have drive-thru facilities tend to have high collision
rates with pedestrians on the sidewalk. She asked if this has been taken into account and what vehicle/pedestrian mitigation
measures are being planned via the Traffic Impact Assessment. She asked if would specifically prohibit left-turn motions from
the adjacent roadway into the drive-thru. The left-turn motion is what commonly results in vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Sh e
said it is also important to allow adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the drive-thru.
Mr. Jackson said he hasn’t seen specific research on pedestrian drive-thru incidents, but the Public Works Department reviews
sight distance requirements for all commercial driveways, including drive-thru facilities. He concluded that the City’s code
does its best to separate modes of transportation and ensure safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrians moving from
parking spaces to a business are supposed to have a clear, delineated pathway, and drive-thru facilities are supposed to be
completely separated from the general parking.
Ms. Harris clarified that she is most concerned when pedestrians are on the adjacent sidewalk and vehicles are traveling from
the roadway into the drive-thru. That’s where the high propensity for vehicle/pedestrian collisio n occurs. In crash statistics
from other jurisdictions, these show up as mid-block collisions and they are not necessarily flagged as drive-thru situations.
Because of the high number of accidents associated with drive-thru facilities, a number of jurisdictions in the country are
banning them in urban areas. She agreed that there are a number of benefits associated with drive-thru facilities, but she wants
to make sure the adjacent traffic patterns are adjusted to make them safe for pedestrian and bicyclists that are passing by the
location. This includes looking at the left turns entering into the driveway, as well as making vehicles exiting the driveway
stop well before they get to the sidewalk so they have time to look for both pedestrians and vehicles.
Mr. Jackson emphasized that these concerns can be addressed via the Traffic Impact Assessment. Professional traffic
engineers can help buttress the work that the Public Works Department is currently performing. He underscored that the code
would require that drive-thru lanes must be separated from the general traffic in an effort to promote safety for pedestrians.
Vice Chair Tift commented that the issue of pedestrian safety is not necessarily limited to drive-thru facilities. For example,
on Kitsap Way, there is Ace Hardware, McDonalds, Papa Murphy’s Pizza and Taco Bell, and every single access point in and
APPROVED
.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 4 of 9
out of these businesses presents a pedestrian hazard if drivers are not watching carefully. He understands the potential haz ards,
and the vegetation and bicycle lane on Kitsap Way add to the problem.
Vice Chair Tift opened the hearing for public testimony.
Christopher Lux, Bremerton, said he and his wife own the property at the corner of Burwell and Navel (Sprout and Thistle),
and they have been working towards developing Street Eats Bremerton, as well as Gravity Coffee drive-thru. He observed that
staff is proposing that drive-thru facilities be allowed in all commercial zones except for those where it is specifically excluded,
but the current code specifically excludes the use in the Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Jackson clarified that the current
code language would allow drive-thru facilities in Commercial and Industrial zones, and District Centers are zoned Mixed-Use
but are selectively allowed to have drive-thru facilities. The Mixed-Use zone was added later for clarification purposes, but
drive-thru facilities are already permitted in Mixed-Use zones under certain circumstances. Drive-thru facilities would be
permitted in the Neighborhood Business zones if the proposed code is adopted.
Mr. Lux referred to Mr. Jackson’s description of the preferred and non-preferred design, particularly the concept of maximizing
pedestrian access to the buildings. He pointed out that there are use cases, such a s coffee stands, banks or pharmacies, where
the drive-thru is the sole access point and there is no pedestrian access. He suggested there needs to be a site -by-site
understanding of the proposal to make sure it provides safety for pedestrians rather than excluding specific design elements,
such as pedestrian access to the building.
Akash Juneja asked if the proposed amendments would allow a drive -thru facility at the Noah’s Ark location. Mr. Jackson
answered that it would be permitted.
No other members of the public indicated a desire to speak, and Vice Chair Tift closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Pedersen commented that staff has done a good job presenting the best proposal possible, but he felt the
amendments would still result in worse biking and walkability in the neighborhoods. While he is sympathetic to the commercial
landowners, the burden of proof hasn’t been satisfactorily met. In order to support the amendments, he would need much more
data showing that they wouldn’t result in more bicycle and pedestrian accidents.
Commissioner Flemister asked if there is a lot-size requirement for being allowed to add a drive-thru facility. Mr. Jackson
answered that there is not a minimum lot size requirement, but there is a minimum length for queuing lanes. The drive-thru
lane must be at least 120 feet, which is meant to accommodate eight cars. If the property cannot accommodate that length, th e
application would be elevated to a Hearing Examiner decision, and the property owner would have to provide some very
convincing safety improvements.
Commissioner Coughlin said he tried to think of all of the cons and concerns associated with the amendments, and most were
addressed in the Staff Report. However, some were not:
•Public Health. Some have raised the concern that obesity rates will be higher with greater access to fast food. He
noted that South Los Angeles banned fast food and drive -thru windows and obesity rates went up, which indicates
that people want the service and are willing to drive further to get it.
•Carbon Emissions. He couldn’t find any studies showing that drive-thru facilities resulted in increased carbon
emissions. If they are prohibited in an area, people will likely be willing to drive further to get the service. Given that
vehicles will become more efficient and less polluting over time, the impact would be negligible.
•Greater and More Convenient Access. Drive-thru facilities provide greater access for the disabled, working families,
etc.
Commissioner Coughlin said he supports the proposed amendments overall. He suggested that perhaps Commissioner
Pedersen’s concerns about pedestrian impacts could be addressed by requiring a Traffic Impact Assessment for all drive-thru
applications. Mr. Jackson emphasized that the review is already being done by the Public Works Department, and the Traffic
Impact Assessment would be an additional requirement to help the Public Works Department assess individual sites. Staff
isn’t proposing that the assessment be required for all applications because some sites can easily meet all of the requirements
without posing a safety issue. The Public Works Department would have the ability to require the additional analysis, if ther e
APPROVED
.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 5 of 9
are any unusual site conditions. Director Spencer said she equates this to the recommendation the Commission made relative
to boundary line adjustments. The code was written to say the City may require a title report or not. Some boundary line
adjustments move lines in a very minor way and it doesn’t make sense to spend all the money to require a title report when th e
request is straight forward. She cautioned against mandating that extra time and resources be spent when it isn’t necessary in
many situations. She explained that the Public Works Department does an extensive review of business access to a site, and
they have worked hard to consolidate all of the access points along Wheaton Way. The proposed amendments would add more
study requirements for the drive-thru, itself, but not for the development as a whole.
Commissioner Coughlin commented that drive-thru facilities provide real benefits to disabled and working families. He
researched other cities and found that Portland, Oregon, increased its drive-thru provision and added a new section of code that
encouraged drive-thru facilities to give access to pedestrians and bicyclists who ordinarily access the building. For example,
if the business was open until 8 p.m., but the drive-thru until 10 p.m., the business would be required to serve pedestrians and
bicyclists at the drive-thru from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. He felt that was a great way to have drive-thru serve not just cars, but also
pedestrians and bicyclists. If that were to be allowed, he would assume that appropriate safety measure would be taken.
Director Spencer voiced concern about the liability associated with the City enacting code requirements that mix cars,
pedestrians and bicyclists together. If they considered this approach, she would rather they focus on serving walk-up customers
in a separate place than the drive-thru facility. Vice Chair Tift concurred with Director Spencer.
Commissioner Mosiman referred the Commissioners to the public hearing that was conducted in 2013 relative to proposed
code amendments for drive-thru facilities. The amendments were being considered at the request of the City Council because
the Comprehensive Plan was not working as expected, and the anticipated development was not happening. There was an
identified requester, as well as an identified purpose. In other business before the Planning Commission, he has always
appreciated having a clear understanding of why the Commission is being asked to consider a proposed amendment. However,
he doesn’t know where the current proposal came from or why it was made. When considering proposals, he likes to understand
the problem the Commission is being asked to address, but that isn’t clear to him at this point. He asked staff to explain who
made the request and why it is being made.
Director Spencer responded that staff has had several conversations with people who want to develop in Bremerton. When
staff informs them that drive-thru facilities aren’t permitted, they generally choose to develop elsewhere in Kitsap County or
other nearby jurisdictions that have less stringent requirements. The proposed amendments are intended to address the City’s
economic situation by encouraging redevelopment opportunities. In addition, it could be argued that the City’s current
regulations are somewhat arbitrary. They are currently only allowed on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, yet 6 th Street is not that
much different than Kitsap Way. Most of the commercial zoning is on high-traffic corridors, which seems to be an appropriate
place. She cautioned that the City is currently competing with Kitsap County, Poulsbo, and Port Orchard, all of which allow
drive-thru facilities with very few design standards. She suggested that the current proposal represents a good balance. It
provides good design standards to address walkability, but also allows drive-thru facilities to serve the community needs.
During the pandemic, the drive-thru option was very advantageous to keeping the local businesses alive. In addition, the Mayor
has voiced concern that the current code is an impediment to development and redevelopment. Lastly, she expressed her belief
that drive-thru service is the way of the future, and it can be allowed with good site design. The proposed regulations are still
more onerous than those in Kitsap County.
Commissioner Mosiman agreed that the pandemic increased the demand for drive-thru service for at least the short-term
because the indoor dining restaurants were closed down. He cautioned that they appear to be looking for a long-term solution
to what is potentially a short-term problem. It would be a mistake to make a decision based on a short-term situation that will
have impacts for decades to come. Regarding earlier comments about emissions, he agreed that vehicles are changing, but
slowly. The turnover rate for vehicle sales is about 6% per year, and the majority are still gas or diesel vehicles. These vehicles
will be part of the fabric of society for decades to come, and expecting automobile technology to solve this problem is decades
away.
Commissioner Mosiman reviewed that in 2013, it was recognized that drive-thru uses needed to be expanded on auto-centric
corridors. Because Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way were already auto-centric, it didn’t make sense to prohibit drive-thru uses.
The work done by the Planning Commission in 2013 was well considered, and the Charleston District Center was specifically
identified as a success story that did not need drive-thru uses. Now they are proposing to change the Planning Commission’s
2013 work without providing any demonstratable evidence that the situation has changed. The Neighborhood Business and
APPROVED
.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 6 of 9
District Center zones are Mixed-Use, which means there are residential properties. He is concerned that the proposal would
allow drive-thru facilities right next to people’s homes, and he doesn’t believe that a 10-foot buffer would be sufficient. They
need to consider the impacts associated with hours of operation, light pollution from the business and car headlights, noisy
vehicles, diesel fumes, etc. He said he doesn’t have a problem expanding drive-thru uses into auto-centric areas, but he doesn’t
support allowing them next to residential development.
Commissioner Mosiman reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan describes the Neighborhood Business character as “small-
scale commercial or mixed-use nodes with uses such as grocers or converted residential structures or purpose-built structures
that are sensitive to the small-scale residential context.” In addition, Land Use Goal 1 calls for reducing traffic congestion,
and the proposed amendments would do exactly the opposite. Again, he is opposed to allowing drive-thru uses in areas where
there is residential development. He suggested that before the Commission makes a decision, residents in the District Centers
should be notified of the proposal and invited to provide feedback.
Commissioner Mosiman directed attention to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as City, County and State documents where
they are attempting to reduce carbon emissions. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment would fly in the face of
that goal. The average wait time in a drive-thru is 4 minutes 25 seconds, which means that cars idle for that amount of time.
Commissioner Rich said she came to the meeting thinking that the proposed amendments made sense and that the current
code was arbitrary and didn’t link up with the way people drive around Bremerton. She said she appreciates staff’s research
on the benefits of drive-thru facilities to working families, people with disabilities, etc. She suggested that the concerns could
be addressed by more detailed information from staff, as well as more specific examples of how the code would be applied.
She asked how the process would be impacted if the Commission decided to postpone its recommendation until the residents
living in the District Centers have been notified and invited to provide input on the proposal.
Vice Chair Tift commented that he was on the Commission in 2013 when the drive-thru code provisions were last updated.
At that point in time, the Commission’s frame of reference was largely focused on fast -food restaurants rather than pharmacies
and other drive-thru businesses that have grown as a result of the pandemic. He expressed his belief that drive-thru is valuable
in neighborhoods, and he submitted that Hi-Lo is probably already a drive-thru by virtue of Uber Eats, Door Dash and other
companies that deliver food from restaurants. He said he doesn’t believe that the doomsday claims that have been raised will
materialize in the heart of a neighborhood because it won’t be profitable for a company to set up something that would attract
diesel trucks and large volumes of traffic.
Director Spencer explained that a public hearing and a recommendation from the Planning Commission is required whenever
the City adopts changes to the zoning regulations. The recommendation is then scheduled for a public hearing before the City
Council. The City Council could take action following its public hearing, or it might choose to study the issue more before
adoption. The timeline for adopting most zoning code amendments is a month or two. She reminded them that property owners
are waiting for the Commission and City Council to take action on the amendments so that proposed development can move
forward. If the Commission’s recommendation is a split vote, they could move the recommendation forward with a minority
report that clearly outlines the concerns. Staff could then do more public outreach to encourage citizen comments at the City
Council’s public hearing.
Commissioner Coughlin said he doesn’t envision the code change would result in a lot of new businesses where there are
none now. The proposed amendment would simply allow existing businesses and perhaps a few new businesses to have drive-
thru capability. While he appreciates the concerns about more traffic in residential areas, the code provides sufficient
safeguards to mitigate the impacts. He noted that carbon emissions from both public and private transportation worldwide is
only about 27%, and he doesn’t see any significant increase of carbon emissions associated with the use. If the Commission
decides to postpone a recommendation to allow more time to reach out to nearby residents, they should make it clear that they
do not expect the proposal would result in an explosion of businesses in the area that weren’t there before. Instead, it would
provide flexibility to a few businesses that could benefit from it.
Commissioner Pedersen said he believes the disability/accessibility argument is valid, but the counterpoint would be
encouraging curbside pickup windows rather than full-on drive-thru facilities. He commented that staff did a good job with
mapping to illustrate the impacts of the amendments, and it is clear that they would result in more drive-thru uses next to
residential areas. He didn’t believe that a 10-foot buffer would be sufficient. He also felt the proposed amendments would
APPROVED
.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 7 of 9
increase auto-centric neighborhoods as opposed to encouraging pedestrian and bicycle activity. The areas that are being
compared to Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are death traps for bicyclists and pedestrians, and he is opposed to creating any
more of these situations in the City.
Commissioner Mosiman voiced concern about the misinformation that has been provided. They aren’t talking about call
ahead, pickup, Door Dash, Uber Eats, etc. They are talking only about drive -thru uses where cars are stacked up. He
encouraged the Commissioners to read the Comprehensive Plan, which sets out the vision for Bremerton. The Land Use
element in the Comprehensive Plan talks about a vision for Neighborhood Business and District Centers. He voiced concern
that opening the areas to drive-thru uses would go against the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While it is likely
true that the amendments would not result in an explosion of drive-thru businesses, that is wishful thinking rather than
definitively correct. The purpose of the zoning code is to put limits on what may happen. He is in favor of supporting the
business community, and he would be willing to consider expanding drive -thru uses in the auto-centric areas, but not in the
District Center and Neighborhood Business zones. They need to carefully consider the impacts this change would have to the
quality of life of the residential property owners in these areas.
Commissioner Coughlin reminded the Commissioners of his earlier suggestion that the proposal be amended to require
businesses to provide opportunities for walkup service when the indoor dining is closed but the drive -thru is open. Director
Spencer noted that staff prepared some alternative language to address this issue that ensures there isn’t a conflict between
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles.
Director Spencer agreed with Commissioner Mosiman that the City’s vision is to create good center and mixed-use
development. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Commission is only considering a small portion of the
development code. The overall intent and underlying principles of each of the zoning districts would still have to be met. She
explained that drive-thru uses are an accessory to an existing business. The actual building would have to meet all of the code
requirements, such as transparency and buildings that are located at the street front. Drive -thru uses would be located behind
the building and wouldn’t be the primary feature. She suggested it would be helpful for Mr. Jackson to explain the developme nt
regulation intentions, which cannot be undermined by a proposed development. He could also share suggested language for a
potential amendment to address Commissioner Coughlin’s concern.
Mr. Jackson referred to the Findings and Conclusions (Attachment B) that were included in the Staff Report. He explained
that the Findings and Conclusions are required to show how a proposed amendment would meet the Comprehensive Plan goals.
He specifically referred to Policy LU-1, which states:
A.Development regulations should encourage pedestrian-oriented mixed-use design in Centers and address such issues
as:
1.Locating buildings or features in the core of the Center at sidewalk edge,
2.Providing windows and other architectural features that foster pedestrian interest along street fronts,
3.Adopting sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale,
4.Encouraging and/or requiring architectural features that are of a scale and type appropriate for viewing by
pedestrians at the building front and immediately nearby, and
5.Development projects should be encouraged to provide amenities such as street furniture, street trees, small
public spaces and plazas, etc.
Mr. Jackson said it is staff’s intention that the proposed amendments would not affect these policies. Drive-thru uses are
intended to be accessory and located at the rear of the building. They would not supersede any of the pedestrian goals.
Next, Mr. Jackson shared alternate language to implement Commissioner Coughlin’s recommendation that drive -thru
businesses provide opportunities for walkup service when the indoor dining is closed but the drive-thru is open. The alternative
language also addresses the concerns that have been raised about mixing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic. The propo sed
language would be:
“When drive-thru facilities are open and other pedestrian-oriented customer entrances to the businesses are
unavailable, they must serve customers using other modes rather than vehicular. This may be accomplished by on -
line ordering, pickup areas or similar. Such pickup areas shall be illustrated on the submitted site plan.”
.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 8 of 9
Mr. Jackson commented that the words, “or similar” were added to recognize that there may be variations that would
accomplish the same goal. The intent is to make sure that any area that is designated as such is shown on a site plan to ensure
that pedestrians are safe. Director Spencer suggested that the motion could include allowing staff to work on language for
alternate means to serve pedestrians and bicyclists.
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT A, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT B. HE FURTHER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO ADD LANGUAGE TO SUPPORT
WALKUP AND BICYCLE SERVICE AND CONDUCT OUTREACH TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. CHAIR WOFFORD SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS COUGHLIN, FLEMISTER, RICH, TIFT AND
WOFFORD VOTING IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONERS MOSIMAN AND PEDERSEN VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Vice Chair Tift said he is anxious to get back to some form of in-person meetings. He has heard from some constituents that
they are missing out on important testimony because of the difficulty some people have with Zoom meetings. He noted a letter
to the editor in THE KITSAP SUN from Diane Manning, who was quite annoyed with the lack of opportunity to comment at
Commission meetings due to technology difficulties.
Chair Wofford announced that it is time for the Community Block Grant process to start, and he has been the participant
representing the Planning Commission on the Grant Committee for the past several years. He asked if any of the other
Commissioners were interested in serving in that role. Director Spencer reviewed that committee members review and score
all of the applications in August. In September, the committee meets to conduct interviews, debate as a committee, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on how to spend the Community Block Grant money. She said she finds it a very
rewarding experience because you get to see the good work that is being done by non-profit organizations in Kitsap County.
It’s also sad because there is such great need and not enough money to give everybody what they ask for. Commissioner
Coughlin indicated he would be interested in serving on the Grant Committee.
Director Report
Director Spencer announced that the Mayor and City Council President are talking about how to open up for in-person
meetings. She reported that there has been an increase in participation and engagement from the public because it is easier for
many to attend virtual meetings. Some people want to continue the virtual meetings even after the in-person meetings resume,
and staff is working to update equipment to support that endeavor. At th is time, she doesn’t have a timeline for when the in-
person meetings will resume.
Director Spencer announced that Ms. Satter has left the City, and Garrett Jackson was promoted to the position of Planning
Manager. She is currently recruiting for Mr. Jackson’s position during a time when the City is experiencing record permit
activity. The next meeting is scheduled for July 19 th, but given all of the other demands on staff time, it may need to be
canceled.
Director Spencer reported that the City Council adopted the Planning Commission’s recommendations on boundary line
adjustments, lot size averaging and double-wide mobile home width.
Old Business
Commissioner Coughlin recalled that, at the last meeting, there was an outstanding question to staff about whether single-
wide recreational vehicles (RVs) would be allowed on single-family lots as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Director
APPROVED
.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 ~ Page 9 of 9
Spencer responded that nothing in state law would prohibit the City from writing regulations that allow any size of
manufactured housing. When Mr. Jackson was doing research for manufactured housing, he discovered that Bremerton and
Poulsbo are the only jurisdictions that mandate double wide and regulate the size. The County doesn’t have any requirements.
She suggested they wait and see how the manufactured home amendments work over the next few years, and then they can be
adjusted as necessary.
New Business
Commissioner Coughlin asked if there are any other Planning Commission items that will appear before the Ci ty Council
before the Commission meets again, and Director Spencer answered no.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
.
To: City Council
From: Garrett Jackson
Date: September 1. 2021
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Drive-through Facilities
SUMMARY
Per Council request at the August 25th Study Session, attached you will find maps which illustrate
existing commercial districts affected by proposed Drive-through Facility zoning code amendments.
These maps illustrate 1) the existing boundaries of each commercial district, 2) sites that could
potentially develop drive-throughs in the future, and 3) sites that are likely to be excluded from
consideration for future drive-throughs. Each map also provides an inset map illustrating the location of
the subject commercial district. In the legend of each map, the total number of single-family residences
located on parcels that could potentially site a future drive-through is noted. Under today’s code these
sites could develop any number of commercial uses, the proposed code would permit these sites an
accessory drive-through to primary uses already allowed in the zone. These results will be more fully
explained during the presentation at the scheduled hearing.
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
You will find sites that are currently permitted by code to develop drive-throughs, and site which would
permit drive-throughs if proposed amendments are adopted, illustrated in green on the provided maps.
Please note that if a property currently fronts on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, the existing code already
allows a drive-through facility at that location. Many of these sites appear to be fully developed with other
commercial uses, so it may not seem feasible to add a drive-through to an existing site. Staff research,
however, indicates that adding a drive-through to an existing site tends to increase sales, so fully
developed commercial sites were retained in the analysis.
NOT LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED
Properties illustrated as Not Likely to be Developed indicate that these specific parcels are doubtful to
construct a Drive-through Facility in the future. Excluded properties are either government owned
properties, new residential projects under development, or are under ¼ of an acre (10,890 square feet) in
size. Staff consulted with a Drive-through Facility developer, and they relayed that a ½ acre site (21,780
square feet) would be a pretty tight location to develop a drive-through and that they prefer a larger lot.
As staff reviewed existing drive-through sites located in the City, however, smaller sized lots were
observed with Drive-through Facilities that appear to potentially meet zoning standards. So while it may
be unlikely that properties less than a ½ acre in size would qualify, Staff chose a conservative approach
and instead excluded all properties that are less than ¼ acre in size.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 2
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 3
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 4
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 5
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 6
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 7
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 8
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 9
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 10
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 11
Memo to Drive-through Facilities Ordinance
⚫ Page 12
Subject: Bremerton Drive Thru Ordinance Update
Date: 8/23/2021
Dear Bremerton City Council,
This week you will be presented with plans from the planning commission to update the Bremerton
drive thru ordinance at a study session and be asked to vote on the changes in early September. As a
resident and business owner in the city, I have been involved in this effort over the past year and would
like to provide my perspective in support of the proposed changes.
My wife Colleen and I purchased the property at the Northwest corner of Burwell and Naval in 2019.
Being two doors away from our home, we wanted to see an otherwise vacant house become an asset
for the community. Colleen started the popular floral design studio Sprout & Thistle after a long
summer of improving the building ourselves by hand. The shop thrived until COVID 19 impacted the
wedding and event industry and forced us to close the business.
We have worked hard to find ways to keep the site active and useful including hosting food trucks run
by local families. During planning to further develop the site and improve it both visually and
functionally, we were approached by a small coffee company from Tacoma (Gravity Coffee) who were
interested in leasing part of the site for a retail location. With the neighboring Coffee Oasis drive thru
halting business and the good fit for location and budget, we filed for pre-submission with the planning
commission.
The planning commission was overwhelming supportive of the plans and investment in the community.
They recognized the need and focus on community that we presented. Unfortunately, there is an
ordinance that prohibits drive thru businesses on certain properties in the city zoned as neighborhood
businesses. It was explained to us that the neighboring property was ‘grandfathered’ and that no
exemption or waiver was allowed under the current code. Upon further discussion, it became clear that
a revision to the code was necessary not only to allow our project to move forward, but to allow for the
consideration of projects at other sites following planning commission approval.
This process has taken months. We have revised site plans and worked with funding agencies to delay
improvements. The planning commission has continued to be supportive and understands the risk to
development this process has created. During the pandemic, we have all found that drive thru access to
anything from groceries and prescriptions to food and drinks has made these items more available to a
wide range of people. These include people with limited mobility, families with kids in the car and those
with health conditions. They will not go away after commerce returns to normal and drive thrus are an
added benefit to them, not an undue burden on the region.
We are asking for the change not to usher in a flood of national chain restaurants, but to allow for small
local businesses to grow once they demonstrate an appropriate site design and business impact to the
planning commission. We plan to have safe pedestrian access, bicycle parking facilities (on the
upcoming pedestrian corridor), outdoor seating and to transform the asphalt pad into green space as
much as possible. Having a reliable long term local tenant such Gravity Coffee is the only financially
viable way to achieve these goals. Furthermore, it will stop cars and trucks from using the corner to
bypass the intersection endangering both pedestrians and motorists.
A vote to make these changes does not give our project or any project an automatic green light. It
merely gives the planning commission the opportunity to approve projects that fit the spirit of a
neighborhood business without unnecessarily limiting options for the site.
I thank you for your consideration of this issue and look forward to attending the study session and vote.
I am happy to answer questions outside of those meetings if you wish to reach out.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lux
317-840-2942
Chrislux@live.com
From: Anna Mockler <upstream@riseup.net>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 1:44 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Hearing 9/1 re BMC 20.44.120
Dear City Council,
I request that you postpone the Public Hearing for BMC 20.44.120, scheduled for 9/1/2021, until the
public has access to information available to Planning and, presumably, to Council at their request on
8/25.
Public cannot make meaningful comment on impacts to Neighborhood Business Zones and surrounding
residential areas because such zones are not mapped in the 8/25 Packet. There are small illustrations
within the packet’s description. However, the large map of all NBZs and the smaller maps of individual
NBZs are not included in the Packet.
I reached out to Garrett Jackson last week, and requested that these maps, which Council asked for for
their own review, be made available to the public in the updated Packet. As of 1:30pm today, Monday
August 30th, they are not there.
A public hearing where the public lacks important information for the decision-making process doesn’t
serve the public. At this point, the public has about 48 hours to review the material, even if it were
posted immediately.
Since this is not a public safety issue, and since no harm will come to anyone if the matter is postponed,
I respectfully urge that the public hearing be held at a future date when members of the public have all
the information available to Planning and to Council — specifically, the large-scale and detailed maps of
Neighborhood Business Zones.
Everyone on the east side of my street would back directly onto an NBZ, as defined by Planning, where a
drive-through could be permitted if the Amendment passes. Everyone working or hoping for a
pedestrian-oriented Callow Ave Redevelopment would be similarly affected. Please give all of us the
chance to weigh the evidence and submit informed comments.
Sincerely,
Anna Mockler
1123 N Cambrian Ave
Bremerton WA 98312
360.509.8280
upstream@riseup.net
From: Anna Mockler <upstream@riseup.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:52 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Hearing Comment: Ordinance 5429
Dear Council,
I urge you to reject this ordinance because:
1. It lacks any real support from the business community;
2. it under-estimates the nuisance value of drive-throughs;
3. its data on profitability are selective, drawn from the pandemic years alone;
4. its estimate of minimum allowable size is based on anecdotal evidence;
5. it violates the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Only one person, Christopher Lux, is on record as wanting to develop his property as a drive-
through. That is not a clarion call from the business community.
2. The Planning Commission determined that nuisance was negligible because if people weren’t at
a drive-through, they would be creating emissions by driving elsewhere. This is poor logic. They
might be cooking or microwaving at home. They might be using curbside service, instituted by
many businesses during the pandemic. The noise and emissions of numerous vehicles stacked
and idling is a significant nuisance to adjacent properties. It’s a concentrated nuisance, one
which is strictly excluded from Downtown in this Ordinance, for instance.
3. The profitabiity of drive-throughs during a pandemic year is atypical. We will not be in a
pandemic forever. The concrete necessary to create a drive-through will be here for decades.
Further, this data appears to come from fast-food drive-throughs which are typically located in
high-traffic areas — definitely not the case in the Neighborhood Business Zones.
4. Planning staff consulted with a Drive-Through Facility Developer, who informed them that 1/2
acre was already “pretty tight”. Staff drove around Bremerton and concluded from visual
observation that existing drive-throughs were smaller. Thus, Staff rejected the expert’s advice
and reduced minimum size to 1/4 acre, which they call "a conservative view". No studies of
profitability, traffic volume, rental costs, business type, etc. were done. That’s anecdotal
evidence.
5. The Comprehensive Plan’s Policy LU-1, page 138 in your packet, calls for pedestrian-oriented
development, attractive to pedestrians from the sidewalk, preferably with public gathering
areas for pedestrians. Mr Jackson’s response is that drive-throughs will be at the backs of the
buildings. The vehicles will still have to cross the pedestrian walkway, and on this I offer
anecdotal evidence of my own: when drivers know they’ll have to get out of their cars and
possibly encounter pedestrians, they’re much more courteous. If they get to stay inside their
car, they stay inside the zone of invulnerability that every one of us feels behind the wheel. It
makes it unpleasant to walk past, if not out and out dangerous.
I’ve been walking the dog down Wycoff between 13th and 15th for years now. Since the drive-through
was installed, traffic has increased in our largely residential neighborhood. Vehicles idle while they wait.
Vehicles with customized mufflers deploy them. Radios blare. It’s not a horror show, but it’s not
something that improves quality of life for anyone who lives here, either.
The people of Bremerton keep saying they want a more walkable, bikeable city. I urge you to reject this
Ordinance. There are numerous vacant properties along Kitsap and Wheaton Way that could easily be
converted to a drive-through. There’s no clear need to move into the neighborhoods with drive-
throughs. Vote no, and let’s put energy into getting that Certificate of Need waiver. That’s something
that would benefit us all.
Sincerely,
Anna Mockler
1123 N Cambrian Ave
Bremerton WA 98312
360.509.8280
upstream@riseup.net
From: Jaime Forsyth <jaimeforsyth@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 11:18 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Support of updates to drive-thru ordinance
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I live and work in Bremerton. I have reviewed the proposed changes to the drive-thru
ordinance and am strongly in favor of you voting to approve the changes.
Knowing that the Planning Commission will still have the power to approve or deny individual
projects will ensure that neighborhood business sites can be developed, while respecting the
people who live and work in the community.
I am happy to see Bremerton working to support a strong community focus while allowing the
flexibility needed to ensure ongoing commercial investment.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
Jaime Forsyth
--
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."
Mahatma Gandhi