HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/2023 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 - Phone (360) 473-5280
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2023
CITY COUNCIL HYBRID MEETING AGENDA
Most Council Members and staff will be participating in the meeting in-person, and the public is invited to attend.
Or beginning at 5:30 PM, the public may participate remotely 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/89694813320?pwd=Z0JvSXNhSFp1c0xhL1NxUjRhN20xUT09
Or One tap mobile:
US: +12532050468,,89694813320#,,,,*173061# or +12532158782,,89694813320#,,,,*173061#
Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 896 9481 3320
Passcode: 173061
Public questions or comments may be submitted ahead of time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
1. BRIEFING: 5:00 – 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. Review of Agenda
B. General Council Business (Only as necessary…)
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register
B. Corrections to Minutes of Meeting – September 20, 2023 Pulled
C. Minutes of Meeting – October 18, 2023
D. Minutes of Special Meeting – October 23, 2023
E. Minutes of Study Session – October 25, 2023
F. Minutes of Special Meeting – October 26, 2023
G. Confirm Appointment of Kristen Sluiter to the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission
H. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with DKS Associates, Inc. for Pedestrian Crossing Safety Project
I. Goods & Services Agreement for Purchase of a Cummins Emergency Generator for
Lift Station CE-1
J. Change Order No. 2 to the Public Works Agreement with Utter Associates, Inc for Design and
Installation of Audio-Visual Equipment at the Bremerton Municipal Court
Continued on next page…
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special
accommodations please contact the City Clerk at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
K. Ordinance No. 5484 to amend and re-establish City Rates and Fees for 2024
L. Ordinance No. 5485 to amend and re-establish Utility Assessments, Rates, and Fees, and
Charges for 2024
M. Ordinance No. 5486 to levy Property Taxes for Collection in 2024
5. PUBLIC RECOGNITION – To address the Council on any issues not already on the agenda.
Please state your name for the record, and limit your comments to under 3-minutes…
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for the Proposed FY-2024 City of Bremerton
Budget (To receive public comment only; No action to be taken by the Council...)
B. Public Hearing (1st of 2) on the Proposed FY-2024 City of Bremerton Budget
(To receive public comment only; No action to be taken by the Council until November 15…)
C. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3368 to approve Community Development Block Grant/HOME
Funding Recommendations for inclusion in the 2024 CDBG/HOME Action Plan
7. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Resolution No. 3367 to approve the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat
located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area
8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. 30-Minutes to discuss Potential and Pending Litigation as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1)(i);
With action anticipated…
10. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNC IL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: N/A
Claims & Check Register COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Legal Services
Presenter: Angela Hoover
Phone: (360) 473-5323
SUMMARY:
Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers:
1. Check Numbers 404693-404869 and EFT Numbers V38590-V38592, V39533-V39631 in the
grand total amount of $2,709,877.26
2. Regular Payroll for pay period ending October 15, 2023 in the amount of $1,059,919.92
3. Retiree Payroll for pay period ending October 31, 2023 in the amount of $35,647.23
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: Corrections to Minutes of
Meeting – September 20, 2023
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on September 20, 2023 previously approved on October
4, 2023 are attached with the following corrections:
1) Item 6A – Motion to Postpone
Vote Tally corrected: 3-Yes; 4-No
2) Item 6B – Motion to Postpone
Change to Yes Vote – Dennehy
Vote Tally corrected: 3-Yes; 4-No
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 amend the motion passed on October 4, 2023 to approve the September 20, 2023 meeting
minutes and amend the minutes to correct:
1. Item 6A – Motion to Postpone vote tally from 4-Yes and 3-No to 3-Yes and 4-No; and
2. Item 6B – Motion to Postpone Dennehy’s vote from a No vote to a Yes vote, and vote tally from 2-
Yes and 5-No to 3-Yes and 4-No.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4B
Pulled
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting – October
18, 2023
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on October 18, 2023 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 October 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4C
2
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL HYBRID MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, October 18, 2023
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday,
October 18, 2023, at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT
CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Jeff Coughlin
presiding. Council Members present were Jennifer Chamberlin, Denise Frey, Quinn Dennehy
(arrived at 5:53 PM remotely), Michael Goodnow, and Eric Younger. Council Member Anna Mockler
was absent. Also present were City Attorney Kylie Finnell; City Clerk Angela Hoover; Financial
Services Director Mike Riley; Legislative Assistant Christine Grenier; and IT Manager Dave
Sorensen. At 5:30 PM, the meeting moved to the First Floor Meeting Chambers.
President Coughlin announced the City Council is conducting the Council Meeting in-person with
an option for the public to join in person, participate via Zoom, or view on BKAT, because
Community involvement is encouraged; and lastly, provided a reminder that now that it is election
season, to refrain from any comments on political campaigns or ballot measures.
MAYOR’S REPORT – Mayor Wheeler highlighted…
Salvation Army emergency shelter will be open from November 1 through April 30
Update on Quincy Square Project
Update on E.11th & Perry Avenue Construction Project
2024 Budget will be available tonight
CONSENT AGENDA
4A – Check Numbers 404462 through 404692 and Electronic Fund Transfers V39411 through
V39532 in the grand total amount of $3,887,895.32; Regular Payroll for pay period ending
September 30, 2023 in the amount of $1,037,532.34; and Regular Payroll payout for pay
period ending September 30, 2023 in the amount of $5,321.70
4B – Minutes of Meeting – October 4, 2023
4C – Minutes of Study Session – October 11, 2023
4D – Renewal of Professional Services Agreement with Kitsap Humane Society for Animal
Control Services
4E – Acceptance of Defense Communities Compatibility Account Grant for Construction of the
Quincy Square Project; and Capital Agreement with WA State Department of Commerce
4F – Public Works Agreement with Precision Concrete Cutting, Inc. for the 2023 – 2025
Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal Unit Priced Contract
4G – Resolution No. 3366 to repeal Resolution No. 3349; and adopt updated Council Rules &
Procedures
Comments and questions were provided by Roy Runyon (Items 4D & 4G)…
5:40 PM M/S/C/U (Frey/Chamberlin) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented.
Voted in Favor of Motion: Chamberlin, Frey, Goodnow, Younger, Coughlin
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION – Comments from the public were submitted by Charles Michel;
Roosevelt Smith; Patrick Cooper; Paul Dutky; Raye Madley; Jane Rebelowski; Rudy Hess;
James Trafficant; Mark Lavean; Mike Simpson; Roy Runyon; and Robert Harris…With
responses provided by President Coughlin; Mayor Wheeler; and Eric Younger.
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, October 18, 2023
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC HEARING
6A – PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 3367 TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF
WASTEWATER UTILITY SERVICES TO THE FISHER PLAT LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST
BREMERTON URBAN GROWTH AREA: Managing Engineer Janelle Hitch explained that an
applicant has requested wastewater service for properties that are outside of the City limits within
the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA) and within the City’s Sewer Service Area. The
applicant has requested an extension of City sewer service to this property and is proposing 189
single-family residences in conformance with Kitsap County zoning.
Pursuant to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040, properties located outside of the City
limits must annex to obtain wastewater services; however, per BMC 15.03.040(b) the City Council
can may approve service in certain circumstances, including when annexation is infeasible. Staff
have analyzed the subject properties and consider annexation infeasible at this time. The action
before the Council is to approve a Resolution for a Policy Exception to provide Wastewater service
within the East Bremerton UGA.
Additional presentations were provided by Matt Rasmusson (Team 4 Engineering); Jon Rose
(Alchemy Development); and Gary Anderson (Team 4 Engineering).
President Coughlin explained that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to accept public comment;
with no action to be taken by Council tonight…
Comments and questions from the public were provided by Anthony Augello; Ray Wexin; Blake
Hoffer; Anita Sanchez; Sarah Hoffer; Kathie Lustig; Judith Kristman; Mike Simonds; Eric
Nemieth; Jane Rebelowski; Christy Cline; Dan; Roy Runyon; Adrianne Horton; Jill Biel;
Hesper Koeler; Mike Simpson; Jan Miller; and Travis Duke.
President Coughlin closed the Public Hearing; announced that this item will be heard at the next
Study Session; and then reopened Public Recognition.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Comments from the public were submitted by Adrian Wright; and Joseph…With a response
provided by President Coughlin…
GENERAL BUSINESS – There were no General Business items…
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Eric Younger appreciated the speakers who let their voices be heard tonight; and responded to
Mr. Runyon’s earlier question about the Kitsap Humane Society contract.
Michael Goodnow was pleased with everyone who participated tonight.
Quinn Dennehy found earlier comments offensive, but acknowledged first amendment rights; and
announced new business Shotsky’s and that Mid-Town Market will be reopening soon.
Denise Frey thanked everyone for their input tonight; and emphasized how ethics is factored into
decisions.
Jennifer Chamberlin recognized the many issues involved in this decision; was grateful for
feedback she received on how she questioned Judge Flood (on September 20); and thanked
public comment tonight.
Jeff Coughlin shared highlights from a recent Main Street Conference he attended.
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, October 18, 2023
Page 3 of 3
President Coughlin announced that following adjournment, an Exempt Closed Session would be
held as allowed under RCW 42.30.140 (4)(b) to discuss Labor Negotiations or Proceedings; (1st of
3) Budget Workshops to discuss the 2024 Budget and General Fund would be held on Monday,
October 23 beginning at 3:00 PM in the Meeting Chambers; and the next Study Session on
Wednesday, October 25 beginning at 5:00 PM will be held in the 6th Floor Council Conference
Room of the Norm Dicks Government Center, and the public is welcome and encouraged to
attend.
With no further business, President Coughlin adjourned the Council Meeting at 8:02 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
CHRISTINE GRENIER
Legislative Assistant
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of November, 2023.
________________________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, City Council President
Attest:
________________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
JC:AH:ls:cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Special Meeting –
October 23, 2023
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of the Budget Workshop held on October 23, 2023 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 October 23, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4D
2
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES
Monday, October 23, 2023
A Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Monday,
October 23, 2023 at 3:38 PM in the 6th Floor Conference Room of the Norm Dicks Government
Center at 345 6th Street, with Council President Jeff Coughlin presiding. Council Members present
were Eric Younger, Anna Mockler, Michael Goodnow, Quinn Dennehy (remotely), Denise Frey, and
Jennifer Chamberlin. Legislative Assistant Christine Grenier was available to provide staff support.
President Coughlin announced that the meeting start time was delayed (from 3:00 PM) and location
changed (from the First Floor Chambers to the 6th Floor Conference Room) due to technical
difficulties; and that tonight’s Budget Workshop will include presentations on the General Fund.
Financial Services Director Mike Riley and Budget Analyst Karen Wikle were introduced to lead
the discussions first by first providing the background on the 2024 Budget process, the schedule
which will include additional discussions on Public Works (October 26) and for general questions
(November 2); followed by an overview on General Government Funds. A presentation was then
provided on the Financial Services Department; followed by the following General Fund
Departments:
Legal Department – City Attorney Kylie Finnell
Department of Community Development – Director Andrea Spencer
Municipal Court – Judge Tracy Flood
Police Department – Police Chief Tom Wolfe
President Coughlin called a break from 5:08 to 5:20 PM…
Fire Department – Fire Chief Pat McGanney
Parks & Recreation Department – Director Jeff Elevado
President Coughlin announced the next Study Session on Wednesday, October 25 beginning at
5:00 PM in the Council Conference Room and that the public is welcome to attend in person or
remotely.
With no further business, President Coughlin adjourned the Budget Workshop at 6:49 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
CHRISTINE GRENIER
Legislative Assistant
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of November, 2023
______________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
ATTEST:
______________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
JC:AH:ls:cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session –
October 25, 2023
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of Study Session held on October 25, 2023 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 October 25, 2023 Meeting Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4E
S
2
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
A Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Wednesday,
October 25, 2023 at 5:01 PM in Council Conference Room 603 located in the Norm Dicks
Government Center at 345 6th Street, with Council President Jeff Coughlin presiding. Other Council
Members present were Eric Younger, Anna Mockler, Denise Frey, and Jennifer Chamberlin.
Council Members Michael Goodnow and Quinn Dennehy were absent. Legislative Assistant
Christine Grenier provided staff support.
President Coughlin established that the Study Session is open for the public to attend in person
or view remotely, but there will be no opportunities for input, the content of these items is subject
to change, no action is anticipated…
He further established that a recording will be available online within a few days following the
meeting. And any of the items approved for action by the Council tonight, will be placed on the
November 1, 2023 City Council Meeting Agenda or as otherwise determined…
And lastly, provided reminders that the microphones are sensitive and do pick-up side
conversations and other sounds in the room; and that now that it is election season, to refrain from
any comments on political campaigns or ballot measures.
A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA BILL ITEMS
1. Confirm Appointment of Kristen Sluiter to the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission
Consent Agenda
2. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with DKS Associates, Inc. for Pedestrian Crossing Safety
Project Consent Agenda
3. Goods & Services Agreement for Purchase of a Cummins Emergency Generator for Lift
Station CE-1 Consent Agenda
4. Resolution to authorize the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat
located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area General Business
President Coughlin called a break from 6:20 to 6:30 PM …
5. Change Order No. 2 to Public Works Agreement with Utter Associates, Inc. for Design
and Installation of Audio-Visual Equipment at the Bremerton Municipal Court Consent
Agenda
6. Update on Oyster Bay Avenue Site Preparation & Homeless Shelter Development
Information only
7. Proposed Public Hearing on Resolution to approve Community Development Block
Grant/HOME Funding Recommendations for inclusion in the 2024 CDBG/HOME Action
Plan
At 7:05 PM, President Coughlin welcomed Presenters for Item B, then at 7:47 PM,
presentations continued with Item A8…
8. Proposed Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for the 2024 City of Bremerton Budget
9. Ordinance to amend and re-establish City Rates & Fees for 2024 Consent Agenda
10. Ordinance to amend and re-establish Utility Assessments, Rates, Fees & Charges for
2024 Consent Agenda
City Council Study Session Minutes
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Page 2 of 2
11. Ordinance to levy Property Taxes for Collection in 2024 Consent Agenda
B. DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION PROJECT UPDATE & DISCUSSION
o Facilitated by Melanie Ryan, Chief Executive Officer for MFR Coaching & Consulting;
and Lucretia Roberston, Principal of Clarity Partnerships
C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Charter Section 18 relating to the City Auditor Information only
2. Discussion on possible definitions for Livability relating to the Joint Transportation
Compatibility Plan Information only
3. Discussion on Social Media Guidelines for Elected Officials
4. Discussion on City Communications Position
5. Audit Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 10/16/2023) – Chair Anna Mockler
6. Public Works Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 10/17/2023) – Chair Anna Mockler
7. Regional and Other Committee/Board Briefings
8. Other General Council Business was also briefly discussed.
President Coughlin established the next Budget Workshop would be held on Thursday, October 26
beginning at 3:00 PM in the First Floor Meeting Chambers, and the public is invited to attend in
person or remotely; and the next Council Meeting would be held on Wednesday, November 1, 2023
beginning at 5:30 PM in the First Floor Meeting Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government Center,
and that the public is invited to attend in person or remotely.
With no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 9:38 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
CHRISTINE GRENIER, Legislative Assistant
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of November, 2023.
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
ATTEST:
______________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
JC:AH:ls:cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Special Meeting –
October 26, 2023
Study Session Date: N/A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: City Council
Presenter: Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The Minutes of the Budget Workshop held on October 26, 2023 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 October 26, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/3/17
4F
2
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES
Thursday, October 26, 2023
A Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Thursday,
October 26, 2023, at 3:00 PM in the First Floor Meeting Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government
Center at 345 6th Street, with Council President Jeff Coughlin presiding. Council Members present
were Anna Mockler, Quinn Dennehy (remotely), Denise Frey, and Jennifer Chamberlin (remotely).
Council Members Eric Younger and Michael Goodnow were absent. Legislative Assistant
Christine Grenier was available to provide staff support.
It was established that the City Council is conducting the Budget Workshop in-person with a
remote option also available, and that it is open for the public to attend, but there will be no
opportunities for input; the content of these items is subject to change; and no action is
anticipated.
Financial Services Director Mike Riley and Budget Analyst Karen Wikle introduced Public
Works Director Tom Knuckey to lead the presentations on the Public Works & Utilities
Department.
President Coughlin called a break from 5:02 to 5:25 PM…
Quinn Dennehy left the meeting at 5:02 PM and did not return…
President Coughlin announced the next Council Meeting would be held on Wednesday,
November 1, 2023 beginning at 5:30 PM in the First Floor Meeting Chambers and that the
public is welcome to attend in person or remotely.
With no further business, President Coughlin adjourned the Budget Workshop at 6:40 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
______________________________
CHRISTINE GRENIER
Legislative Assistant
APPROVED by the City Council on the 1st day of November, 2023
______________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
ATTEST:
______________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
JC:AH:ls:cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Confirm Appointment of Kristen Sluiter to the
Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Executive
Presenter: Mayor Wheeler
Phone: (360) 473-5266
SUMMARY:
The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the appointment of Kristen Sluiter to the Bremerton Parks &
Recreation Commission. The term expires September 29, 2026.
ATTACHMENTS: Application to the commission is available in the Mayor’s office.
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 confirm the appointment of Kristen Sluiter to the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Commission
for the term expiring September 29, 2026.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/09/2021
4G
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with DKS
Associates, Inc. for Pedestrian Crossing
Safety Project
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: PW&U-Engineering
Presenter: Chris Dimmitt
Phone: (360) 473-2307
SUMMARY:
In November 2022, the City executed a contract with DKS for the design of the Pedestrian Crossing
Safety Project in the amount of $220,049.25. The proposed Supplement No. 1 increases the contract
value by $66,493.87 to a new total of $286,543.12; the work includes additional design work and
Right-Of-Way (ROW) services. The supplement is a WSDOT standard agreement with its standard
terms and conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Supplement No. 1 with DKS Associates, Inc.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This project is fully funded by a Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Supplement No.1 between the City of Bremerton and DKS Associates, Inc for the
Pedestrian Crossing Safety Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement
with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 11/09/2021
4H
Supplemental Agreement
Number
Organization and Address
Phone:
Original Agreement Number
Project Number Execution Date Completion Date
Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable
Description of Work
The Local Agency of
desires to supplement the agreement entered in to with
and executed on and identified as Agreement No.
All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement.
The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
I
Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read:
II
Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days
for completion of the work to read:
III
Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows:
as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement.
If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the Appropriate
spaces below and return to this office for final action.
By: By:
Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature
Date
DOT Form 140-063
Revised 09/2005
01 DKS Associates
719 2nd Ave, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98104
206-328-9800
315042
HSIP-000S(629)11/02/2022 12/31/2024
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons $ 286,543.12
The project will install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) systems at eight locations throughout
the city of Bremerton. The project will include thermoplastic marked crosswalks and ADA curb ramps
associated with the RRFB enhanced marked crosswalks.
City of Bremerton
DKS Associates
11/02/2022 315042
See Exhibit A attached
No changes
See Exhibit D attached.
Richard Hutchinson, DKS Associates Greg Wheeler, Mayor City of Bremerton
Exhibit “A”
Summary of Payments
Basic
Agreement
Supplement #1 Total
Direct Salary Cost
Overhead
(Including Payroll Additives)
Direct Non-Salary Costs
Fixed Fee
Total
DOT Form 140-063
Revised 09/2005
47,576.53 6,202.45 53,778.98
86,527.44 11,280.40 97,807.84
72,623.86 47,274.34 119,898.20
13,321.42 1,736.69 15,058.11
220,049.25 66,493.87 286,543.12
Page 1 of 5
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA DKS Associates
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
City of Bremerton - Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA
Supplement #1
November 1, 2023
Project Description
The City of Bremerton (CITY) requested the DKS team (CONSULTANT) re-design the curb ramps at the
southeast and southwest corner of the Perry Ave and Stone Way intersection to fit with the Kitsap
County sidewalk improvement design north of the intersection crossing the city limits.
During the design, it was identified that the project needs right-of-way acquisitions for one (1) parcel
and eight (8) Temporary Construction Easements (TCE). The original scope of work assumes two (2) TCEs
in support of the City’s project objectives.
All other assumptions from the base contract are still in effect with the exception of tasks and
deliverables delineated in this supplement.
Task 1: Project Management
The CONSULTANT will perform project management and administration tasks for the sub-consultants
contract and additional scope of work.
The CONSULTANT will work with the CITY to coordinate with the County’s design north of the Perry Ave
and Stone Way intersection.
Task 5: 90% Design
The CONSULTANT will revise the 90% PS&E packages for the curb ramp re-design at Perry Ave and Stone
Way. Both southeast and southwest corners will be revised to two curb ramp designs from the current
combined signal ramp design. The CONSULTANT will also add the crosswalk pavement markings on the
east and west leg of the intersection connecting to the County designed curb ramp on the north side of
Stone Way.
Page 2 of 5
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA DKS Associates
Fee covers redesign of 4 curb ramps at Stone Way and Perry Ave. All other deliverables are unchanged
from base contract.
Task 5 Deliverables:
The curb ramps redesign will be part of the 90% PS&E package. No separated design
deliverables.
Task 6: 100% Design and Bid Documents
The CONSULTANT will incorporate the four curb ramp design at Stone Way and Perry Ave. Both
southeast and southwest corners are changed to two curb ramp designs. The crosswalk pavement
markings are added on the east and west leg of the intersection connecting to the County designed curb
ramp on the north side of Stone Way.
Fee covers redesign of 4 curb ramps at Stone Way and Perry Ave. All other deliverables are unchanged
from base contract.
Task 5 Deliverables:
The curb ramps and pavement marking design will be part of the 100% design and final bid
documents. No separated design deliverables.
Task 8: Right-of-Way Services
ROW Plans
The original contract set aside a $5,500 fee for ROW confirmation, plans, and obtaining title reports
assuming (2) temporary construction easements. As the design is being finalized, the project identified
one parcel that need exhibits, maps and legal descriptions; and eight Temporary Construction
Easements (TCE) will be required for construction.
The CITY authorizes the CONSULTANT to use the $5,500 set-aside budget for ROW plans. This task
revision includes additional budget to cover 6 additional TCEs and one acquisition.
ROW Services
• The right-of-way needs for 30% plans have been developed. The ROW services scope is
amended based on (6) additional temporary construction easements and one fee takes – a total
of six additional parcels in support of the CITY's project objectives
Page 3 of 5
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA DKS Associates
• Regarding the six (6) additional parcels requiring fee takes and temporary construction
easements, it is assumed they are non-complex in nature, will amount to less than $25,000
each, and therefore valuations can be provided via Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) reports.
It is understood that federal funding will be a component of the program and therefore that
WSDOT Right-of-Way Certification will be required
Project Management
• Attend kick-off meeting with the CITY to obtain further project background and discuss design
impacts and communications approaches for each property/business owner and tour each
project site.
• Lead regular acquisition status meetings, provide verbal and written status reporting, a total of
two 30-minutes status meetings and 6 monthly reports for the acquisition of ROW from six
additional parcels.
• Coordinate with design team, project team, city's public outreach teams in settlement and
mitigation strategies for an additional six parcels.
• Provide oversight into State and Federal compliance issues and requirements for six additional
parcels.
Valuation Services
• Complete Administrative Offer Summaries (AOS's) for six additional parcels - resulting with a
total of eight AOS reports based on WSDOT and Uniform Relocation Act requirements.
• Perform market data research, improvements valuations, for (6) additional acquisitions.
• Integrate valuation findings into final valuation determinations and offer packages for CITY
review/approval for six additional parcels.
• Title Review and Offer Package Preparations for six additional parcels.
• Review preliminary title reports, confirm vesting interest of each parcel affected for six
additional parcels.
• Prepare acquisition files according to WSDOT, CITY and Uniform Relocation Act standards for six
additional parcels.
• Prepare offer packages, conveyance documents, notices and all other documentation associated
with the negotiations process. If acquisitions require the need for fee takes and permanent
easements from additional parcels, an additional budget will be negotiated before commencing
work
Negotiations/Settlement Justifications
Page 4 of 5
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA DKS Associates
• Contact property owners, impacted by CITY's acquisition, present offer packages for six
additional parcels.
• Negotiate and settlement terms for TCE and/or permits, perform property research,
counteroffer justifications and other data to reach settlement for six additional parcels.
• Conduct a minimum of three (3) significant and meaningful contacts with each property owner
before recommendation of impasse in negotiations for six additional parcels.
• If it becomes apparent that negotiations have reached an impasse and sufficient time has
passed for the property owner to make a settlement decision, the CONSULTANT shall provide
written notice to the CITY of impasse in negotiations and recommendation for condemnation
• If the CITY choses to continue negotiations as opposed to filing condemnation, an additional
budget to extend negotiation efforts will be negotiated.
• Prepare Administrative Justification Settlement Memorandums, per CITY, WSDOT and Uniform
Act requirements for one parcel – resulting in no changes to scope our hours.
• Facilitate execution of all conveyance documents, prepare CITY payment vouchers and
coordinate with CITY on owner settlement payments for six additional parcels.
WSDOT Certification Oversight/Project Close Out
• Prepare all acquisition files for WSDOT Local Area Coordinator (LAC) Review for six additional
parcels.
• Coordinate with WSDOT LAC on certification issues and concerns that arise, as needed
• Provide CITY with final, closed out, acquisition files, both digital and hard copies for six
additional parcels.
Assumptions
• All negotiations shall continue to follow the CITY's approved ROW procedures. This includes
negotiations being conducted by a WSDOT certified real estate agent and diaries kept for all
interactions with property owners
• Any title clearance to be performed by CITY
• Right-of-way plans and right of way legal descriptions to be provided by CONSU LTANT's team
• CITY will facilitate payment of claims to affected property owners.
• Consultant will order and pay for six additional (6) Preliminary Title Reports (PTR's) necessary to
confirm all affected ownerships. Cost of PTR's is included in this Scope and Fee Proposal. Any
title clearance action is not included in this scope of work
• All valuations are assumed to less than $25,000. If above, scope and fee proposal is subject to
revision to account for appraisal and appraisal review costs, per Uniform Act Requirements. An
additional budget to include appraisal fees will be negotiated prior to commencing work
Page 5 of 5
Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
Bremerton, WA DKS Associates
• Scope and Fee Proposal in Amendment 1 is based on design assumptions based on the 30% plan
submittal.
Task 8 Deliverables:
• Draft ROW plans - in conjunction with the 30% milestone
• Final ROW plans - in conjunction with 100% PS&E milestone
• Developing project funding estimate (PFE) for WSDOT approval
• Obtaining ROW certification from WSDOT for the project
• Permitting, licensing, recording fees or closing costs are not included.
EXHIBIT DHOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE
Project:
10-Oct-23
DKS Associates
Total Fee
Principal Project Senior Project Assistant CAD Project Effective
Task Engineer Manager Engineer Engineer Engineer Technician Coordinator Admin Direct Overhead Profit multiplier
101.65$ 76.89$ 59.66$ 51.25$ 47.21$ 36.63$ 39.15$ 40.43$ Hours Labor Cost 181.87% 28%3.0987
Task 1 - Project Management
1.1 General Project Management 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 732.57 1,332.33 205.12 2,270.01
1.2 QA/QC 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 12 784.84 1,427.39 219.76 2,431.98
1.3 Coordination and Meetings (1)0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 426.88 776.37 119.53 1,322.77
0 16 10 0 0 0 3 0 29 1,944.29 3,536.08 544.40 6,024.77
Task 5: 90% Design
5.1 90% Design Plans 3 8 8 20 18 57 2,721.49 4,949.57 762.02 8,433.08
5.2 90% Specifications 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
5.3 90% Construction Cost Estimate 0 1 2 3 154.08 280.23 43.14 477.45
5.4 Draft MEF Document 0 0 - - - -
0 3 9 8 22 18 0 0 60 2,875.57$ 5,229.80$ 805.16$ 8,910.53$
Task 6: 100% Design and Bid Documents
6.1 100% Design Plans 1 3 2 12 6 24 1,144.67 2,081.81 320.51 3,546.99
6.2 100% Specifications 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
6.3 100% Construction Cost Estimate 0 0 1 0 1 47.21 85.86 13.22 146.29
6.4 Final MEF Document 0 0 0 0 - - - -
6.5 Bid Ready Package 1 2 1 4 190.71 346.84 53.40 590.95
0 1 4 2 15 7 0 0 29 1,382.59$ 2,514.52$ 387.13$ 4,284.23$
Task 8 - Right-of-Way Services
8.1 ROW Plans (KPG)
8.2 ROW Services (Abeyta)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ -$
SUM 0 20 23 10 37 25 3 0 118 6,202.45$ 11,280.40$ 1,736.69$ 19,219.53$
Sub Consultants:
KPG PSOMAS: Task 8.1 - ROW Plans 3,943.37$
Abeyta: Task 8.2 - ROW services 43,330.97$
ODC:
Milage/Print
Grand Total 66,493.87$
City of Bremerton Systemic Pedestrian Treatments RRFB
Supplement #1
Labor Hour Estimate
Task Totals
Description
Task Total
Task Total
Task Total
City of Bremerton Page 1 of 1 DKS
10/10/2023
KPG PSOMAS
COST COMPUTATIONS
Client: DKS
Project: Bremerton Systemic Pedestrian Treatments RRFB
Supplemental Budget for Right of Way Plans and Legal Descriptions
DATE: October 2023
Survey ManagerSurvey Crew II (W/Equip)Survey Crew I (W/Equip)Project SurveyorSenior Survey Technician$82.73 $82.00 $64.50 $54.06 $45.12 Hours Fee
12.1 ROW Rearch 0 -$
12.2 ROW Plans Preparation 24 24 1,082.88$
12.3 Legal Descrriptions and Exhibits 5 5 225.60$
0 0 0 0 29 29 1,308.48$
0 0 0 0 29 29 1,308.48$
ICR Overhead @ 1.7337% = 2,268.51$
Fixed Fee @ 28% = 366.37$
Total KPG (DL + OH + Fixed Fee) = 3,943.37$
N/A
-$
Mileage at current IRS rate -$
Reproduction Allowance -$
-$
3,943.37$
Note: this budget is a supplement to the $5,500 originally allocated for ROW plans and Legal Description Preparation
Task
No.Task Description
Labor Hour Estimate
Total Hours and Labor Fee
Estimate by Task
Task 12 Right-of-Way Plans
Task Total
Done under previous task
Total Estimated Budget
Total Labor Hours and Fee
Subconsultants
Total Subconsultant Expense
Reimbursable Direct Non-Salary Costs
Total Reimbursable Expense
Prepared for: DKS Supplement 1
City of Bremerton - Systemic Pedestrian Treatments- RRFB
NEGOTIATION SERVICES
$61.53 $50.32 SR
Item 1: Project Administration Prop Mgt Admin SR/PM Agent Acq Agent Acq Agent Title REO Escrow Total
Coord with City and DKS (three additional hours).3 0 3
Certification Assistance / Coordination with City and WSDOT - four additional
hours 4 0 4
Clerical - 0 0 0
Contract Admin and Management of overall ROW activities (5 additional hours)5 0 5
Administrative Offer Summary Reports (8) Parcels (60 additional hours)24 32 56
Progress Reporting, Meetings & Kick-off Meetings - (5 additional hours)5 0 5
Prepare one ROW Funding Estimate - [8 Parcels: 1 fee take and 7 TCE(s)] = 12
additional hours 12 0 12
Coord w/Subconsultants- 0 0 0
Hours:0 0 53 32 0 0 0 0 85
Direct Labor $:0.00 0.00 3,261.09 1,610.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,871.33$
Item 2: Right-of-Way Acquisition
Title, Plans, and Appr. Review - six additional parcels = 44 additional hours 22 22 44
Pre-Offer/File Setup/Document Prep - 8 packages/files for (7) parcels with
TCE(s) & 1 parcel with a Fee Take = 52 additional hours 25 25 50
Negotiations (TCEs from seven tax parcels and fee take from one parcel) = 108
additional hours.53 55 108
Administrative Settlement Memorandums (1 Parcel) No additional hours.0
Clearing Title - City assumes the risk and/or is responsible for clearing title.0 0 0
Condemn Support - 0 0 0
Data/file & Diary Management, Maintenance for City & WSDOT = six additional
parcesl = 28 additional hours. 14 14 28
Hours:0 0 114 116 0 0 0 0 230
Direct Labor $:0.00 7,014.42 5,837.12 12,851.54$
Direct Labor Totals:
Hours:0 0 167 148 0 0 0 0 315
Dollars:0 0.00 10,275.51 7,447.36 0 0 0 0 17,722.87$
Direct Salary Cost:17,722.87$
Per Parcel Breakdown:Direct Labor Rate:17,722.87$
Summary Audited Overhead Rate:110%19,495.16$
Direct Salary Cost 17,722.87$ Profit:26%4,607.95$
Overhead Cost @ 110.00%19,495.16$ Composite Multiplier:136%41,825.97$
Fee @ 26%4,607.95$ *Total Labor Fee:41,825.97$
Labor 41,825.97$ Expenses:
Expenses 1,505.00$ Review Appraisal -$
Subconsultant -$ Appraisal -$
Contract Total 43,330.97$ Mileage/Travel 825.00$
Reprographic, Copy, & Printing 300.00$
Courier Overnight Postage 380.00$
Subtotal:1,505.00$
*TOTAL 43,330.97$
Abeyta Associates
10/10/2023 / City of Bremerton Project - Fee Supplement 1.05302023 Page1
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Goods & Services Agreement for Purchase
of a Cummins Emergency Generator for
Lift Station CE-1
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: PW&U/WWTP
Presenter: Eric J. Burris
Phone: (360) 473-5448
SUMMARY: The emergency generator at lift station CE-1 dates from the 1980s and is no longer
supported by the manufacturer. The City has standardized on Cummins emergency generators to
ensure compatibility with other equipment, and to help ensure parts and service availability. Staff
received a quote from Cummins in the amount of $113,011.08 including shipping and applicable
Washington state sales tax for a replacement generator for this location. Staff will perform all
installation and performance testing of the new generator upon receipt.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Goods and Services Agreement; 2) Sales quote from Cummins; 3) Sole
Source Memo
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds are available from Wastewater Capital
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the purchase of a Cummins emergency generator through a Goods and Services
Agreement for $113,011.08 including tax, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the
purchase with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4I
Page 1 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington
Municipal Corporation ("City"), and Cummins ("Vendor"), whose mailing address is:500
Jackson Street, Columbus, Ohio 47201-6258
The parties agree as follows:
I. VENDOR SERVICES. The Vendor shall provide the following goods and materials
and/or perform the following services for the City:
New Generator at Lift Station CE-1 per quote #Q-183740-20230630-1314, dated June
30th, 2023. These terms and conditions shall incorporate and include Cummins terms
and conditions attached as Exhibit A.
II. TIME OF COMPLETION. Vendor shall complete the work and provide all goods,
materials and services within 30 - 45 calendar days calendar days from the date all parties have
signed this Agreement.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Vendor the total amount of $113,011.08,
including applicable Washington State Sales Tax, for the goods, materials and services
contemplated in this Agreement. The City shall pay the Vendor the following amounts according
to the following schedule:
To be Invoiced Within 30 Days of Delivery payment due net 30
A. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment
from Vendor for any defective or unauthorized goods, materials or services. If Vendor is unable,
for any reason, to complete any part of this Agreement, the City may obtain the goods, materials
or services on its own or from a third party, and Vendor shall be liable to the City for any additional
costs incurred by the City. "Additional costs" shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs
and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum Agreement price specified above.
The City further reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete this Agreement, including any
Additional Costs, from any and all amounts due or to become due the Vendor.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Vendor is and shall be at all times acting as an
independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Vendor 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 Vendor,
officer, agents, employees and subcontractors. The Vendor shall also secure all applicable
business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract services, including all required
licenses for Vendor's officers, agents, employees and subcontractors.
Page 2 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
V. 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 Vendor's refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled
workers or proper materials for completion of this Agreement.
B. The Vendor's failure to complete this Agreement within the time specified in this
Agreement.
C. The Vendor's failure to make full and prompt payment to subcontractors or for
material or labor.
D. The Vendor's failure to comply with federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations.
E. The Vendor's filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt.
If the City terminates this Agreement for good cause, the Vendor shall not receive any
further monies due under this Agreement until the goods, materials, and services required by this
Agreement are completed and fully performed by the City or a third party of the City’s choosing.
VI. CHANGES. The City may issue a written change order for any change in the goods,
materials or services to be provided during the performance of this Agreement. If the Vendor
determines, for any reason, that a change order is necessary, Vendor must submit a written change
order request to an authorized agent of the City within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date
Vendor 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 Vendor'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 Vendor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable
to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Vendor
shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving either a written change order from the
City or an oral order from the City before actually receiving the written change order. If the Vendor
fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Vendor waives its right to make any
claim or submit subsequent change order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the
Vendor disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Vendor must complete the change order work;
however, the Vendor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below:
A. Procedure and Protest by the Vendor. If the Vendor disagrees with anything
required by a change order, another written order, or an oral order from the City, including any
direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the City, the Vendor 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 Vendor's protest.
Page 3 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
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 Vendor is asserting a schedule change or disruption.
3. The Vendor 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 Vendor's records needed
for evaluating the protest.
The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section
are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City will adjust payment for work
or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest.
B. Vendor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Vendor
shall proceed promptly to provide the goods, materials and services required by the City under this
Agreement.
C. Vendor's Acceptance of Changes. The Vendor accepts all requirements of a change
order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or (3) not p rotesting in the way this
section provides. A change order that is accepted by Vendor 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 Vendor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any written or oral
order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination).
E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the
procedures of this section, the Vendor completely waives any claims for protested work and
accepts from the City any written or oral order (including directions, instructions, interp retations,
and determination).
VII. CLAIMS. The Vendor 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 Vendor
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 Vendor
knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a Vendor's
written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section VI(A)(2)(a)-(e).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM
Page 4 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
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.
Vendor 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.
VIII. WARRANTY. Goods purchased hereunder are accompanied by an express written
manufacturer’s warranty (“Warranty) and, except as previously provided in this Agreement, is the
only warrant offered on such goods. The Vendor shall correct all defects in workmanship and
materials during the term of the Warranty set forth in Vendor’s Quotation (“Warranty Term”) in
accordance with the Warranty Term. Defects corrected under the Warranty are warranted for the
time remaining under the Warranty Term. The Vendor shall begin to correct any defects within
seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the Vendor does not
accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the corrections at the
expense of Vendor.
IX. INDEMNIFICATION. Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all third party claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection
with bodily injury, death or tangible property damage to the extend caused by defective goods
manufactured by Vendor and delivered to City under this Agreement.. Vendor’s obligation to
indemnify shall not extend to that portion of damages caused by the City’s sole negligence.
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Vendor'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 Vendor and the
City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Vendor's liability hereunder shall
be only to the extent of the Vendor's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE VENDOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES 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.
X. INSURANCE. The Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the contract work by the Vendor, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors.
Page 5 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Vendor shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with
limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for
personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to:
blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; and employer's
liability.
C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence and aggregate.
D. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence/claim.
E. 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
Vendor.
All required policies shall be provided on an “occurrence” basis except professional
liability insurance (if required), which shall be provided on a “claims-made” basis.
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Vendor and a copy of the
endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies.
The Vendor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that
coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,
except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability.
The Vendor'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 Vendor to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified
mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, Attn: Risk Management, 345 6th Street, Suite
100, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change
of any insurance policy required herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of
this Agreement.
Page 6 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof
of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence
of coverage.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Licenses and Taxes. Vendor shall possess a current Bremerton Business License
and any regulatory license required to fulfill Vendor's obligations under this Agreement. B&O
taxes shall be paid when due, and Vendor, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under
this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent.
B. Conflict and Precedence. In the event of a conflict between the contract documents,
the document which rates higher on the following list shall take precedence:
1. Amendments / Change Orders to Goods and Services Agreement
2. Goods and Services Agreement
3. Specifications
4. Terms and Conditions
5. Vendor’s Proposal
C. Documents Incorporated by Reference. The following documents are incorporated
by reference, including but not limited to:
1. Terms and Conditions,
2. Specifications,
3. Proposal, and
4. Non-Collusion Affidavit.
D. Use of Photographs and Images. Vendor shall not use or distribute photographs or
images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Vendor or
provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably
withhold its consent.
E. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement. In the hiring of employees for the
performance of work under this Agreement, the Vendor, its subcontractors, or any person acting
on behalf of Vendor 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.
F. ADA Statement. The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of
disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to both
employment and admission to participation in the programs, services and activities of the City of
Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment will be
provided.
G. Compliance with Laws. Vendor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws,
rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this Agreement.
Page 7 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
H. Prevailing Wages. Vendor 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. Vendor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter 39.12 of the Revised
Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate provisions. The latest
prevailing wage rate revision issued by the Department of Labor and Industries is attached.
I. Work Performed at Vendor's Risk. Vendor 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 Vendor's own risk, and Vendor 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.
J. 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 Vendor under
any of the provisions of this Agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be available exclusively
under the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County,
Washington.
K. Attorney's Fees. 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 IX of this Agreement.
L. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below, 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 in this Agreement.
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
CITY: VENDOR:
Attn:Eric Burris Attn: Zach Schulte
City of Bremerton Cummins
345 6th Street, Suite 100 500 Jackson St
Bremerton, WA 98337-1891 Columbus, Ohio 47201-6258
M. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by the Vendor without the written
consent of the City shall be void.
N. 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 Vendor.
Page 8 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
O. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this
Agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
P. Suspension & Debarment. For contracts involving Washington State or Federal
funding, Vendor hereby certifies, by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction by any Washington State, Federal department, or
agency. Vendor shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is
or has become ineligible for certification. Should Vendor enter into a covered transaction with
another firm, Vendor agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom
it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified.
.
Q. 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.
R. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER TERM
OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL VENDOR, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,
EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS BE LIABLE TO CITY OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF
ANY KIND (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DOWNTIME, LOSS OF PROFIT OR
REVENUE, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY, DAMAGE TO GOODWILL,
ENHANCED DAMAGES, MONETARY REQUESTS RELATING TO RECALL EXPENSES
AND REPAIRS TO PROPERTY, AND/OR DAMAGES CAUSED BY DELAY) IN ANY WAY
RELATED TO OR ARISING FROM VENDOR'S SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT OR THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL VENDOR'S LIABILITY TO CITY OR ANY
THIRD PARTY CLAIMING DIRECTLY THROUGH CITY OR ON CITY'S BEHALF UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED BY
CUMMINS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. BY ACCEPTANCE
OF THIS AGREEMENT, CITY ACKNOWLEDGES CITY'S SOLE RECOVERY AGAINST
VENDOR FOR ANY LOSS SHALL BE THE REMEDY PROVIDED HEREIN EVEN IF THE
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THE WARRANTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS
ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement.
CITY: VENDOR:
Page 9 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 04/2023
CITY OF BREMERTON CUMMINS
By: By:
Print Name: Print Name:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
By: By:
KYLIE J. FINNELL, Bremerton City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Goods and Services Agreement Rev. 04 2023.docx
C Sales and
Service
June 30, 2023
Prepared by
Zach Schulte
(206) 794-9801
zach. t.schulte@cumm ins . com
We are p leased to provide you this quotation based on your inqu i ry .
Item Description
1 DFEK Commercial Diesel Generator Set, 500kW Standby 60Hz
U .S . EPA , Stationary Emergency Application
500DFEK, Diesel Genset, 60Hz , 500kW-Standby Rating
Duty Rating -Standby Power (ESP)
Em ission Certification , EPA , Tier 2 , NSPS Cl Statio n ary Emergency
Listing -UL 2200
Cert -Seismic , IBC2000, IBC2003 , I BC2006 , IBC2009, IBC2011
None-Vi bration Isolators-Normal Duty
Vo ltage -277/480 , 3 P hase , Wye, 4 Wire
A lternator -60Hz , 12 Lead , Extended Range , 105C
Housing-None
Enclosu re Pa i nt-None
Fuel Water Separator
Control Mounting -Front Faci ng
PowerCommand 2.3 Co ntroller
LCD Control Disp lay
Relays -Genset Status , User Configured
Alarm -Aud ible , E ngine Shutdown
Signals -Auxiliary , 8 lnputs/8 Outputs
Relay -Alarm Shutdown
Control Dis play Lang uage -Englis h
Ci rcuit Breaker or Entrance Box or Terminal Box -Left Only
Circu it Breaker -1200A, Le ft , 3P , 600/415V, SS RMS , 80 %UUIEC
Circu it Breaker or Termi nal Box Right-None
Bottom Entry, Left
Circuit Breaker or Entrance Box or Termina l Box, Right-None
Indication -Ground Fau lt
Exhaust Connector -NP T
Engine Air Cleaner -Normal Duty
Eng i ne Cool i ng -Radiator, 40C Ambient
Shutdown -Low Coolant Level
Coolant Heater -208/240/480 Volts AC , 40F M i nimum Ambient Temperature
Genset Warranty -2 Years Base
Lite rature -E nglis h
Packinq -None
2 OTECE, OTEC Transfer Switch-Electronic Control: 1200A
OTEC1200, Transfer Switch-. PowerCommand , 1200 Amp
Listing -UL 1008/CSA Certificatio n
IBC Seismic Certification
Application -Util ity to Genset
Cabinet -Type 1
Cab le Lugs -Mechanical, 4 -600MCM/Pole
Poles -3 (Solid Neutral)
Frequency -60 Hz
System -3 Phase , 3 or 4 Wire
Voltage -480 Volts AC
Genset Starting Battery -24V DC
PC40 Control
Auxi li ary Relay -Switch in Emergency Position -24 Vo lts DC
Quotatio n: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-183740-20230630-1314
Qty
1
1
Page 1 of 10
C Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-183740-20230630-1314
Aux iliary Re lay -Switch In Normal Position -24 Volts DC
Interface -Communications Network, MODBUS RTU Module
Relay -Elevator Signal
Transfer Switch Warranty -2 Year Comprehensive
3 Vibration Isolator, Seismic-2000Ibs, 1.11" Deflection, 1802Ibs/in Spring Rate 6
4 Battery Charger-10Amp, 120/208/240VAC, 12/24V, 50/60Hz 1
5 Exhaust silencer and flex, shipped loose and installed by others 1
6 Battery boxes and racks 1
7 Delivery to site, off-loading by others 1
8 Generator batteries, Group SD 2
9 Start up and system testing with a 2 hour load bank test. 1
TOT AL: $ 103,490.00
7._,c '1 .l 1,, : 'I, f 2 I . O<J'
Quote va lu e does not include any tax.
EXCEPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS:
~,~,.I 7,,./,,/ :1111, "''· o 8
No specifications or electrical drawings provided or rev iewed for this proposal.
COVID 19 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT
AS A RESULT OF THE OUTBREAK OF THE DISEASE COVID-19 ARISING FROM THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS , TEMPORARY
DELAYS IN DELIVERY , LABOUR OR SERVICES FROM CUMMINS AND ITS SUB-SUPPLIERS OR SUBCONTRACTORS MAY
OCCUR . AMONG OTHER FACTORS , CUMMINS' DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CORRECT AND PUNCTUAL
SUPPLY FROM OUR SUB-SUPPLIERS OR SUBCONTRACTORS , AND CUMM INS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE PARTIAL
DELIVERIES OR MODIFY ITS LABOUR OR SERVICE. WHILE CUMMINS SHALL MAKE EVERY COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE
EFFORT TO MEET THE DELIVERY, SERVICE OR COMPLETION OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN , SUCH DATES ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) CERTIFICATION
The products in this quotation identified as meeting the requirements of the 2009 IBC have been certified by their respective
manufactures via a combination of analytical testing and shaker table testing. Not all products have been shaker table tested .
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEAL TH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (OSHPD)
OSHPD seismic requirements are continuing to evolve. Please contact Cummins for the most current requirements for meeting
OSHPD applications .
SELECTIVE COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (NEC) ARTICLE 700 AND 701 LOADS
Cummins generators are equipped with the manufacturer's recommended circuit breaker. Information regarding this device can be
supplied upon request. This quotation is not valid if any changes to this circuit breaker(s) is required to coordinate with other devices in
the electrical distribution system . If changes are required, the customer must provide a copy of the coordination study listing the
manufacturers part number of the disconnect device to be suppl ied with the generator and a revised quotation will be issued .
TRANSFER SWITCH WITHSTAND AND CLOSE RATINGS
Transfer switch(es), if included in this quotation , require a withstand and closing rating (WCR) capable of meeting the available
upstream fault current (kAIC). The WCR may be based on a specific breaker rating or a time-based rating, and it is the responsibility of
a qualified facility designer or engineer to verify compatibility. In the event that the proposed transfer switch(es) are not compatible , the
transfer switch(es) will need to be re-quoted to ensure compatibil ity . A full listing of the WCR can be provided upon request and will be
included as part of the submittal package.
CUMMINS STANDARD EXCLUSIONS
Exhaust System
All off-engine piping , hangers , flanges, gaskets , bolts , insulation , other materials and labor to install.
Fuel System
All fuel piping and materials not limited to; supply , return , venting, valves, coolers, filters, pumps , fittings, primary fuel regulator, storage
tank & senders, external to genset package . All fuel for testing and initial fill. Fuel tank vent extensions and flame arrestors unless
specifically listed in the Bill of Materials.
Cooling System
Intake louvers , exhaust louvers , air dampers , sheet metal ducting, flex adapters, sound
attenuators/baffles. All off engine piping , flexible connections , labor and coolant for remote cooling systems.
Quotation : Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Page 2 of 10
C Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE 1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Electrical
All off-engine w i ri ng, field terminations of wiri ng , and lugs other than those detai led in our sub mi tta l. Mo unting
Mounting bolts and anchors . Vibration isolators (if included) may be shipped loose for installation at the jobsite by others. Seismic
engineeri ng calculations .
Electrical Testing
Not limited to International Electrical Testing Association (NETA), i nfrared scanning , ha rmon ic content o r other independent agency
testing of switchgear, switchboards , protective relays , ci rcuit breaker, electrical coordination stud ies , arc flash studies and reactive load
site testing.
Environmental Testing
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local air quality d istrict or other Authority Havin g Jurisd iction
(AHJ), incl uding acousti cal .
Programming
All protective relay settings , breaker settings , PLC programming or other use r configurable device programmi ng.
Documentation
Electronic submittals and operation and maintenance manuals will be provided . Printed copies are available upon request, additional
charges may apply .
Miscellaneous
Site specific label ing . Exhaust backpressure , ai rflow rest ri ction or vibration analysis
Design
Cummins is not responsible for system design or engi neering and does not guarantee system performance standards. Cumm ins will
supp ly documentation and reasonable assistance to others responsible for system engineeri ng des ign a nd performa nce .
Taxes and Permit
Any applicable sales tax , permits , fees , licenses .
Bonds
Any bid bond , payment or performance bond or other type of bond.
All items listed above are excluded and will only be supplied by Cummins if agreed upon , in writing, by a sales representative
for Cumm ins.
LEAD TIME:
Submittal
Typical submittal lead ti me is 3 -4 weeks after receipt of purchase order.
Equipment
Current lead-time fo r the generator is 45 -47 weeks after submittal approva l and re lease for production .
Please feel free to contact me if you require any additional information ; o r if you have any further questions or concerns that I may be of
assi stance with .
Thank you for choosing Cummins .
Submitted by:
Zach Schulte, Territory Manager
zach .t.schulte@cummins .com
(206) 794-9801
SUBMITTALS. An order for the equipment covered by th is quotation w ill be accepted on a hold for release basis . Your order will not be
released and scheduled for production until written approval to proceed is received in our office . Such submittal approval shall
constitute acceptance of the terms and conditions of this quotation unless the parties otherwise agree in writing.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THIS QUOTATION, INCLUDING LIMITATIONS
OF WARRANTIES AND LIABILITIES , WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED HEREIN. BY ACCEPTING THIS QUOTATION,
CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN READ, FULLY UNDERSTOOD
AND ACCEPTED.
Authorized Signatu re Date
Quotation : Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Page 3 of 10
Sales and
Service
Company Name
Printed Name & ntle
Purchase Order No
Quotation : Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
<Rest of the page is intentionally left blank>
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Page 4 of 10
C . Sales and
Service
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SALE OF POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
These Terms and Conditions for Sale of Power Generation Equipment, together with the quote ("Quote"), sales order ("Sales Order"),
and/or credit application ("Credit Application") on the front side or attached hereto, are hereinafter collectively referred to as this
"Agreement" and shall constitute the entire agreement between the customer identified in the Quote ("Customer") and Cummins Inc.
("Cummins") and supersede any previous representation, statements, agreements or understanding (oral or written) between the
parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Customer shall be deemed to have made an unqualified acceptance of
these Terms and Conditions and it shall become a binding agreement between the parties on the earliest of the following to occur: (i)
Cummins' receipt of Customer's purchase order or purchase order number; (ii) Customer's signing or acknowledgment of this
Agreement; (iii) Cummins' release of equipment to production pursuant to Customer's oral or written instruction or direction; (iv)
Customer's payment of any amounts due to Cummins; or (v) any other event constituting acceptance under applicable law. No prior
inconsistent course of dealing, course of performance, or usage of trade, if any, constitutes a waiver of, or serves to explain or
interpret, the Terms and Conditions set forth in this Agreement. Electronic transacti ons between Customer and Cummins will be
solely governed by the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement, and any terms and conditions on Customer's website or other
internet site will be null and void and of no legal effect on Cummins. In the event Customer delivers, references, incorporates by
reference, or produces any purchase order or document, specifications, agreement (whether upstream or otherwise), or any other
terms and conditions related thereto, then such specifications, terms, document, or other agreement: (i ) shall be null and void and of
no legal effect on Cummins, and (ii) this Agreement shall remain the governing terms of the transaction.
1. SCOPE . Cummins shall supply power generation equipment and any related parts, materials and/or services expressly identified in
this Agreement (collectively, "Equipment"). No additional services, parts or materials are included in this Agreement unless mutually
agreed upon by the parties in writing. A Sales Order for Equipment is accepted on a hold for release basis. The Sales Order will not be
released and scheduled for production until written approval to proceed is received from Customer. A Quote is limited to the plans and
specifications section specifically referenced in the Quote. No other sections shall apply. Additional requirements for administrative
items may require additional costs. The Quote does not include off unit wiring, off unit plumbing, offloading, rigging, installation,
exhaust insulation or fuel, unless otherwise stated and mutually agreed to in writing by the parties. Unless otherwise agreed by
Cummins in writing, this Quote is valid for a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the date appearing on the firs t page of this
Quote ("Quote Validation Period"). At the end of the Quote Validation Period, this Quote will automatically expire unless accepted by
Customer prior to the end of the Quote Validation Period. The foregoing notwithstanding, in no event shall this Quote Validation
Period be deemed or otherwise considered to be a firm offer period nor to establish an option contract, and Cummins hereby reserves
its right to revoke or amend this Quote at any time prior to Customer's acceptance.
2. SHIPPING; DELIVERY; DELAYS . Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, Equipment shall be delivered FOB origin,
freight prepaid to first destination. For consumer and mobile products, freight will be charged to Customer. Unless otherwise agreed to
in writing by the parties, packaging method, shipping documents and manner, route and carrier and delivery shall be as Cummins
deems appropriate. Cummins may deliver in installments. A reasonable storage fee, as determined in Cummins' sole discretion, may
be assessed if delivery of the Equipment is delayed, deferred, or refused by Customer. In the event Customer fails to take any or all
shipments ofEquipment ordered hereunder within thirty (30) days of the agreed upon delivery date , Cummins shall have the right, in
its sole discretion to either (i) charge a minimum storage fee in the amount of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month of the total
quoted amount; or (ii) consider the Equipment abandoned and, subject to local laws, may (a) make the Equipment available for auction
or sale to other customers or the public, or (b) otherwise use, destroy, or recycle the Equipment at Customer's sole cost and expense.
The foregoing remedies shall be without prejudice to Cummins' right to pursue other remedies available under the law, including
without limitation, recovery of costs and/or losses incurred due to the storage, auction, sale, destruction, recycling, or otherwise of the
Equipment. Offloading, handling, and placement ofEquipment and crane services are the responsibility of Customer and not included
unless otherwise stated. All shipments are made within normal business hours, Monday through Friday. Any delivery, shipping,
installation, or performance dates indicated in this Agreement are estimated and not guaranteed. Further, delivery time is subject to
confirmation at time of order and will be in effect after engineering drawings have been approved for production. Cummins shall use
commercially reasonable efforts to meet estimated dates, but shall not be liable to customer or any third party for any delay in
delivery, shipping, installation, or performance, however occasioned, including any delays in performance that result directly or
indirectly from acts of Customer or any unforeseen event, circumstance, or condition beyond Cummins' reasonable control including,
but not limited to, acts of God, actions by any government authority, civil strife, fires, floods, windstorms, explosions, riots, natural
disasters, embargos, wars, strikes or other labor disturbances, civil commotion, terrorism, sabotage, late delivery by Cummins'
suppliers, fuel or other energy shortages, or an inability to obtain necessary labor, materials, supplies, equipment or manufacturing
facilities. AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 REIATED EFFECTS OR INDUSTRY SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS, TEMPORARY DEIAYS IN
DELIVERY, LABOR OR SERVICES FROM CUMMINS AND ITS SUB-SUP PUERS OR SUBCONTRACTORS MAY OCCUR. AMONG OTHER
FACTORS, CUMMINS' DEUVERY OBLIGATIONS ARE SUB/ECT TO CORRECT AND PUNCTUAL SUPPLY FROM OUR SUB-SUPPLIERS OR
SUBCONTRACTORS, AND CUMMINS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE PARTIAL DEUVERIES OR MODIFY ITS LABOR OR SERVICE.
WHILE CUMMINS SHALL MAKE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MEET THE DEUVERY, SERVICE OR COMPLETION
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Page 5 of 10
C . Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
OBUGATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, SUCH DATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. IN THE EVENT DEUVERY, SHIPPING, INSTALI.ATION,
OR PERFORMANCE IS DELAYED, HOWEVER OCCASSIONED, DUE TO EVENTS BEYOND CUMMINS' REASONABLE CONTROL, THEN
THE DATE OF DELIVERY, SHIPPING, INSTALI.ATION, OR PERFORMANCE FOR THE EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES SHALL BE EQUITABLY
EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD EQUAL TO THE TIME LOST, PLUS REASONABLE RAMP-UP.
3 . PAYMENT TERMS; CREDIT; RETAINAGE . Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing and subject t o credit approval by
Cummins, payments are due thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. If Customer does not have approved credit with Cummins, as
solely determined b y Cummins, payments are due in advance or at the time of supply of the Equipment. If payment is not received
when due, in addition to any rights Cummins may have at law, Cummins may charge Customer eighteen percent (18%) interest
annually on late payments, or the maximum amount allowed by law. Customer agrees to pay Cummins' costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorneys' fees) related to Cummins' enforcement and collection of unpaid invoices, or any other enforcement of this
Agreement by Cummins. Retainage is not acceptable nor binding, unless required by statute or accepted and confirmed in writing by
Cummins prior to shipment. If Customer fails to make any payments to Cummins when due and payable, and such failure continues
for more than sixty (60) days from the date of the invoice, or less if required by applicable law, then Cummins may, at Cummins' sole
discretion and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, either (i) terminate this Agreement; or (ii) postpone delivery of any
undelivered Equipment in Cummins' possession and/or suspend its services until payment for unpaid invoices is received.
4. TAXES; EXEMPTIONS. Unless otherwise stated, the Quote excludes all applicable local, state and federal sales and/or use taxes,
permits and licensing. Customer must provide a valid resale or exemption certificate prior to shipment ofEquipment or applicable
taxes will be added to the invoice.
5. TITLE; RISK OF LOSS. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, title and risk of loss for the Equipment shall pass to
Customer upon delivery of the Equipment by Cummins to freight carrier or to Customer at pickup at Cummins' facility.
6. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE. Customer shall inspect the Equipment upon deliv ery, before offloading, for damage, defects,
and shortage. Any and all claims which could have bee n discovered by such inspection shall be deemed absolutely and unconditionally
waived unless noted by Customer on the bill of lading. Where Equipment is alleged to be non-conforming or defective, written notice
of defect must be given to Cummins within three (3) days from date of delivery after which time Equipment shall be deemed accepted.
Cummins shall have a commercially reasonable period of time in which to correct such non-conformity or defect. If non-conformity o r
defect is not eliminated to Customer's reasonable satisfaction, Customer may reject the Equipment (but shall protect the Equipment
until returned to Cummins) or allow Cummins another opportunity to undertake corrective action. In the event startup of the
Equipment is included in the se rvices, acceptance shall be deemed to have occurred upon successful startup.
7. LIEN; SECURITY AGREEMENT. Customer agrees that Cummins retains all statutory lien rights. To secure payment, Customer
grants Cummins a Purchase Money Security Interest in the Equipment. If any portion of the balance is due to be paid following
delivery, Customer agrees to execute and deliver such security agreement, financing statements, deed of trust and such other
documents as Cummins may request from time to time in order to permit Cummins to obtain and maintain a perfected security
interest in the Equipment; or in the alternative, Customer grants Cummins a power of attorney to execute and file all financing
statements and other documents needed to perfect this security interest. Cummins may record this Agreement, bearing Customer's
signature, or copy of this Agreement in lieu of a UCC -1, provided that it shall not constitute an admission by Cummins of the
applicability or non-applicability of the UCC nor shall the failure to file this form or a UCC-1 in any way affect, a lter, or invalidate any
term, provision, obligation or liability under this Agreement. The security interest shall be superseded if Customer and Cummins enter
into a separate security agreement for the Equipment. Prior to full payment of the balance due, Equipment will be kept at Customer's
location noted in this Agreement, will not be moved without prior notice to Cummins, and is subject to inspection by Cummins at all
reasonable times.
05.01.2023
8. CANCELLATION; CHARGES. Orders placed with and accepted by Cummins may not be cancelled except with Cummins' prior
written consent. If Customer seeks to cancel all or a portion of an order placed pursuant to this Agreement, and Cummins accepts such
cancellation in whole or in part, Customer shall be assessed cancellation charges as follows: (i) 10% of total order price if cancellation
is received in Cummins' office after Cummins has provided submittals and prior to releasing equipment to be manufactured; (ii) 25%
of total order price if cancellation is received in Cummins' office after receipt of submittal release to order, receipt of a purchase order
for a generator already on order with the factory, or is asked to make any hardware changes to t he equipment already on order with the
facto1y; (iii) 50% of total order price if cancellation is received in Cummins' office sixty (60) or fewer days before the scheduled
shipping date on the order; or (i v) 100% of total order price if cancellation is received in Cummins' office after the equipment has
shipped from the manufacturing plant.
9. TERMINATION. Cummins may, at any time , terminate this Agreement for convenience upon sixty (60) days' written notice to
Customer. If the Customer defaults by (i) breaching any term of this Agreement, (ii) becoming insolvent or declared bankrupt, o r (iii)
making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, Cummins may, upon written notice to Customer, immediately terminate this
Agreement. Upon such termination for default, Cummins shall immediately cease any further performance under this Agreement,
without further obligation or liability to Customer, and Customer shall pay Cummins for any Equipment or services supplied under
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
C . Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-183740-20230630-1314
this Agreement, in accordance with the payment terms detailed in Section 3. If a notice of termination for default has been issued and
is later determined, for any reason, that the Customer was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall treat the
termination as a termination for convenience.
10. MANUALS. Unless otherwise stated, electronic submittals and electronic operation and maintenance manuals will be provided,
and print copies may be available upon Customer's request at an additional cost.
11. TRAINING; START UP SERVICES; INSTALLATION. Startup services, load bank testing, and owner training are not provided
unless otherwise stated. Site startup will be subject to the account being current and will be performed during regular Cummins
business hours, Monday to Friday. Additional charges may be added for work requested to be done outside standard business hours, on
weekends, or holidays. One visit is allowed unless specified otherwise in the Quote. A minimum of two-week prior notice is required t o
schedule site startups and will be subject to prior commitments and equipment and travel availability. A signed site check sheet
confirming readiness will be required, and Cummins personnel may perfom1 an installation audit prior to the startup being completed.
Any issues identified by the installation audit shall be corrected at the Customer's expense prior to the start-up. Portable load banks
for site test (if offered in the Quote) are equipped with only 100 feet of cable. Addi tional lengths may be arranged at an extra cost.
Cummins is not responsible for any labor or materials charged by others associated with start-up and installation of Equipment, unless
previously agreed upon in writing. Supply of fuel for start-up and/or testing, fill-up of tank after start up, or change of oil is not
included unless specified in the Quote. All installation/execution work at the site including, but not limited to: civil, mechanical,
electrical, supply of wall thimbles, exhaust extension pipe, e lbows, hangers, expansion joints, insulation and cladding materials,
fuel/oil/cooling system piping, air ducts, and louvers/dampers is not included unless specified in the Quote. When an enclosure or sub-
base fuel tank (or both) are supplied, the openings provided for power cable and fuel piping entries, commonly referred to as "stub-
ups", must be sealed at the site by others before commissioning. All applications, inspections a nd/or approvals by authorities are to be
arranged by Customer.
12. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY. Equipment purchased hereunder is accompanied by an express written manufacturer's
warranty ("Warranty") and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, is the only warranty offered on the Equipment. A copy of
the Warranty is available upon request. While this Agreement and the Warranty are intended to be read and applied in conjunction,
where this Agreement and the Warranty conflict, the terms of the Warranty shall prevail.
13. WARRANTY PROCEDURE. Prior to the expiration of the Warranty, Customer must give notice of a warrantable failure to
Cummins and deliver the defective Equipment to a Cummins location or other location authorized and designated by Cummins to
make the repairs during regular business hours. Cummins shall not be liable for towing charges, maintenance items such as oil filters,
belts, hoses, etc., communication expenses, meals, lodging, and incidental expenses incurred by Customer or employees of Customer,
"downtime " expenses, overtime expenses, cargo damages and any business costs and losses of revenue resulting from a warrantable
failure.
14. LIMITATIONS ON WARRANTIBS.
THE REMEDIBS PROVIDED IN THE WARRANTY AND THIS AGREEMENT ARE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIBS
AND REMEDIBS PROVIDED BY CUMMINS TO THE CUSTOMER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. EXCEPT AS SET OUT IN THE
WARRANTY AND THIS AGREEMENT, AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, CUMMINS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS, W ARRANTIBS, ENDORSEMENTS, AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIBD,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW IMPLIBD REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES
AND CONDITIONS OF FITNESS FOR A PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY.
The limited warranty does not cover Equipment failures resulting from: (a) inappropriate use relative to designated power rating; (b)
inappropriate use re lative to application guidelines; (c) inappropriate use of an EPA-SE application generator set relative to EPA's
standards; (d) normal wear and tear; (e) improper and/or unauthorized installation; (f) negligence, accidents, or misuse; (g) lack of
maintenance or unauthorized or improper repair; (h) noncompli ance with any Cummins published guideline or policy; (i) use of
improper or contaminated fuels, coolants, or lubricants; (j) improper storage before and after commissioning; (k) owner's delay in
making Equipment available after notification of potential Equipment problem; (I) replacement parts and accessories not authorized
by Cummins; (m) use of battle short mode; (n) owner or operator abuse or neglect such as: operation without adequate coolant, fuel,
or lubricants; over fueling; over speeding; lack of maintenance to lubricating, fueling, cooling, or air intake systems; late servicing and
maintenance; improper storage, starting, warm-up, running, or shutdown practices, or for progressive damage resulting from a
defective shutdown or warning device; or (o) damage to parts, fixtures, housings, attachments and accessory items that are not part of
the generating set.
IS. INDEMNITY. Customer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Cummins from and aga inst any and all claims, actions, costs,
expenses, damages and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys' fees, brought against or incur red by Cummins related to or arising
out of this Agreement or the Equipment supplied under this Agreement (collectively, the "C laims"), where such Claims were caused or
contributed to by, in whole or in part, the acts, omissions, fault or negligence of the Customer. Customer shall present any Claims
covered by this indemnity to its insurance carrier unless Cummins directs that the defense wi ll be handled by Cummins' legal counsel
at Customer's expense.
Quotation : Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
C . Sales and
Service
16. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL CUMMINS, ITS OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES , OR AGENTS BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN
TORT OR UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, STRICT LIABILITY OR NEGLIGENCE),
FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, LIQUIDATED, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND
(INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DOWNTIME, LOSS OF PROFIT OR REVENUE, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY,
DAMAGE TO GOODWILL, ENHANCED DAMAGES , MONETARY REQUESTS RELATING TO RECALL EXPENSES AND REPAIRS
TO PROPERTY, AND/OR DAMAGES CAUSED BY DELAY), OR IN ANYWAY RELATED TO OR ARISING FROM CUMMINS'
SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL CUMMINS' LIABILITY TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY CLAIMING
DIRECTLY THROUGH CUSTOMER OR ON CUSTOMER'S BEHALF UNDER THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF
EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED BY CUMMINS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS
AGREEMENT, CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES CUSTOMER'S SOLE REMEDY AGAINST CUMMINS FOR ANY LOSS SHALL BE
THE REMEDY PROVIDED HEREIN.
17 . DEFAULT ; REMEDIES . Customer shall be in breach and default if: (a) any of the payments or amounts due under this Agreement
are not paid; (b) Customer fails to comply, perform, or makes any misrepresentation relating to any of the Cu stomer's obligations or
covenants under this Agreement; or (c) prior to full payment of the balance due, Customer ceases to do business, becomes insolve nt,
makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, appoints a receiver, commences an action for dissolution or liquidation, or
becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings, or the Equipment is attached, levied upon, seized under legal process, is subjected to a
lien or encumbrance, or transferred by operation of law or otherwise to anyone other than Cummins. Upon the occurrence of any
event of Customer's default, Cummins, at its sole option and without notice, shall have the right to exercise concurrently or separately
any one or all of the following remedies, which shall be cumulative and not alternative: (a) to declare all sums due, and to become due,
under this Agreement immediately due and payable; (b) to commence legal proceedings, including collection actions and specific
performance proceedings, to enforce performance by Customer of any and all provisions of this Agreement, and to be awarded
damages or injunctive relief for the Customer's breach; (c) to require the Customer to deliver the Equipment to Cummins' branch
specified on the face of this Agreement; ( d) to exercise one or more of the rights and remedies available to a secured party under
applicable law; and (e) to enter, without notice or liability or legal process, onto any premises where the Equipment may be located,
using force permitted by law, and there to disconnect, remove and repossess the Equipment, the Customer having waived further right
to possession after default. A waiver of any event of default by Cummins shall not be a waiver as to any other or subsequent default.
18. CUSTOMER REPRESENTATIONS; RELIANCE. Customer is responsible for obtaining, at its cost, permits, import licenses, and
other consents in relation to the Equipment, and if requested by Cummins, Customer shall make these permits, licenses, and consents
available to Cummins prior to shipment. Customer represents that it is familiar with the Equipment and understands operating
instructions and agrees to perform routine maintenance services. Until the balance is paid in full, Customer shall care for the
Equipment properly, maintain it in good operating condition, repair and appearance; and Customer shall use it safely and wi thin its
rated capacity and only for purpose it was designed. Even if Customer's purchase of Equipment from Cummins under this Agreement
is based, in whole or in part, on specifications, technical information, drawings, or written or verbal advice of any type from third
parties, Customer has sole responsibility for the accuracy, correctness and completeness of such specifications, technical information,
drawings, or advice. Cummins make no warranties or representations respecting the accuracy, correctness and completeness of any
specifications, technical information, drawings, advice or other information provided by Cummins. Cummins makes no warranties or
representations respecting the suitability, fitness for inte nded use, compatibility, integration or installation of any Equipment
supplied under this Agreement. Customer has sole responsibility for intended use, for installation and design and performance where
it is part of a power, propulsion, or other system. Limitation of warranties and remedies a nd all disclaimers apply to all such technical
information, drawings, or advice. Customer acknowledges and agrees by accepting delivery of the Equipment that the Equipment
purchased ls of the size, design, capacity and manufacture selected by the Customer, and that Customer has relied solely on its own
judgment in selecting the Equipment.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY. Each party shall keep confidential a ny information received from the other that is not generally known to
the public and at the time of disclosure, would reasonably be understood by the receiving party to be proprietary or confidential,
whether disclosed in oral, written, visual, electronic, or other form, and which the receiving party (or agents) learns in connection with
this Agreement including, but not limited to: (a) business plans, strategies, sales, projects and analyses; (b) financial information,
pricing, and fee structures; (c) business processes, methods, and models; (d) employee and supplier information; (e) specifications;
and (f) the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Each party shall take necessary steps to ensure compliance with this provision by
its employees and agents.
20. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION. This Agreement and all matters arising hereunder shall be governed by, interpreted,
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Indiana wi thout giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision. The
parties agree that the federal and state courts of the State of Indiana shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
C Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
arising in connection with this Agreement or any related matter, and hereby waive any right to claim such forum would be
inappropriate, including concepts of forum non conveniens.
21. INSURANCE. Upon Customer's request, Cummins will provide to Customer a Certificate of Insurance evidencing Cummins'
relevant insurance coverage.
22. ASSIGNMENT . This Agreement shall be binding on the parties and their successors and assigns. Customer shall not assign this
Agreement without the prior written consent of Cummins.
23. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Any intellectual property rights created by either party, whether independently or jointly, in the
course of the performance of this Agreement or otherwise related to Cummins pre-existing intellectual property or subject matter
related thereto, shall be Cummins' property. Customer agrees to assign, and does hereby assign, all right, title, and interest to such
intellectual property to Cummins. Any Cummins pre-existing intellectual property shall remain Cummins' property. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be deemed to have given Customer a license or any other rights to use any of the intellectual property rights of
Cummins.
24. PRICING . To the extent allowed by law, actual prices invoiced to Customer may vary from the price quoted at the time of order
placement, as the same will be adjusted for prices prevailing on the date of shipment due to economic and market conditions at the
time of shipment. Subject to local laws, Cummins reserves the right to adjust pricing on goods and services due to input and labor cost
changes and/or other unforeseen circumstances beyond Cummins' control.
25. MISCELLANEOUS. Cummins shall be an independent contractor under this Agreement. All notices under this Agreement shall be
in writing and be delivered personally, mailed via first class certified or registered mail, or sent by a nationally recognized express
courier service to the addresses set forth in this Agreement. No amendment of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is writing and
signed by an authorized representative of the parties hereto. Failure of either party to require performance by the other party of any
provision hereof shall in no way affect the right to require such perfom1ance at any time thereafter, nor shall the waiver by a party of a
breach of any of the provisions hereof constitute a waiver of any succeeding breach. Any provision of this Agreement that is invalid or
unenforceable shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms hereof. These terms are exclusive and constitute
the entire agreement. Customer acknowledges that the provisions were freely negotiated and bargained for, and Customer has agreed
to purchase of the Equipment pursuant to these Terms and Conditions. Acceptance of this Agreement is expressly conditioned on
Customer's assent to all such Terms and Conditions. Neither party has relied on any statement, representation, agreement,
understanding, or promise made by the other except as expressly set out in this Agreement. In the event Cummins incurs additional
charges hereunder due to the acts or omissions of Customer, the additional charges will be passed on to the Customer, as applicable.
Headings or other subdivisions of this Agreement are inserted for convenience ofreference and shall not limit or affect the legal
construction of any provision hereof. The Parties' rights, remedies, and obligations under this Agreement which by their nature are
intended to continue beyond the termination or cancellation of this Agreement, including but not limited to the Section 16.
Limitation of Liability provision contained herein, shall survive the expiration, termination, or cancellation of this Agreement.
26. COMPLIANCE . Customer shall comply with all laws applicable to its activities under this Agreement, including, without
limitation, any and all applicable federal, state, and local anti-bribery, environmental, healtl1, and safety laws and regulations then in
effect. Customer acknowledges that the Equipment, and any related technology that are sold or ot11erwise provided hereunder may be
subject to export and other trade controls restricting the sale, export, re-export and/or transfer, directly or indirectly, of such
Equipment or technology to certain countries or parties, including, but not limited to, licensing requirements under applicable laws
and regulations of the United States, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. It is the intention of Cummins to comply with t hese
laws, rules, and regulations. Any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, Customer shall comply with all
such applicable all laws relating to the cross-border movement of goods or technology, and all related orders in effect from time to
time, and equivalent measures. Customer shall act as the importer of record with respect to the Equipment and shall not resell, export,
re-export, distribute, transfer, or dispose of the Equipment or related technology, directly or indirectly, witl1out first obtaining all
necessary written permits, consents, and authorizations and completing such formalities as may be required under such laws, rules,
and regulations. In addition, Cummins has in place policies not to distribute its products for use in certain countries based on
applicable laws and regulations including but not limited to UN, U.S., UK, and European Union regulations. Customer undertakes to
perform its obligations under this Agreement with due regard to these policies. Strict compliance with this provision and all laws of
the territory pertaining to the importation, distribution, sales, promotion and marketing of the Equipment is a material consideration
for Cummins entering into this Agreement with Customer and continuing this Agreement for its term. Customer represents and
warrants that it has not and shall not, directly or through any intermediary, pay, give, promise to give or offer to give anyt11ing of value
to a government official or representative, a political party official, a candidate for political office, an officer or employee o f a public
international organization or any other person, individual or entity at the suggestion, request or direction or for the benefit of any of
the above-described persons and entities for the purposes of inducing such person to use his influence to assist Cummins in obtaining
or retaining business or to benefit Cummins or any other person in any way, and will not otherwise breach any applicable laws relating
to anti-bribery. Any failure by Customer to comply with these provisions will constitute a default giving Cummins the right to
immediate termination of tl1is Agreement and/or the right to elect not to recognize the warranties associated with the Equipment.
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
C Sales and
Service
Project: City of Bremerton WWTP CE1
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Customer shall accept full responsibility for any and all civil or criminal liabilities and costs arising from any breaches of those laws
and regulations and will defend, indemnify, and hold Cummins harmless from and against any and all fines, penalties, claim, damages,
liabilities, judgments, costs, fees, and expenses incurred by Cummins or its affiliates as a result of Customer's breach.
27. To the extent applicable, this contractor and subcontractor shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 60-l.4(a), 60-
300.S(a) and 60-741.S(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals based on their status as
protected veterans or individuals with disabilities and prohibit discrimination against all individuals based on their race,
color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. Moreover, these regulations require that covered
prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment individuals without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, protected veteran status or disability.
The employee notice requirements set forth in 29 CFR Part 4 71, Appendix A to Subpart A, are hereby incorporated by reference
into this contract.
Quotation: Q-1837 40-20230630-1314
Public Works and Utilities Department
100 Oyster Bay Ave. N. • Bremerton, WA 98312 • (360) 473-5920 • FAX (360) 473-5360
Page 1 VENDOR NAME August 3, 2022
DATE: August 3, 2022
TO: Procurement File
FROM: Cami Apfelbeck, Water Utility Manager
Eric Burris, Wastewater Utility Manager
SUBJECT: Sole Source Determination
In accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code 2.76.090, Sole Source Purchases, the purpose of
this memorandum is to document the necessity of sole source procurement methodology for the
purchase of Cummins generators and generator services.
Reasoning (check all supporting options below):
☒ Compatibility to existing City standard or to existing equipment, inventory, systems, data,
programs or service. (Attach the business case for the standard and attach a copy of the standard
if it is written).
☐ Licensed or patented product with only one dealer. (Include a statement explaining why this
particular licensed or patented product the only one suitable for your purpose)
☐ Authorized service provider, repair and/or warranty services. The City requires service or
repair support for products or equipment owned by the City, and the vendor is either a factory
authorized warranty service provider or that particular vendor is required for warranty services
according to the conditions of a current City contract.
☐ Unique design: Requires unique features that are essential aesthetic requirements, or not
practical to match to existing design or equipment, such as artwork. Describe.
☐ Special bargain: This might include a surplus item, an auction sale, used equipment, returned
“open box” purchase, or other similar one-time bargains. Describe.
☐ Delivery date: Only one supplier can meet required delivery date. Explain why this delivery
date is essential. This can only be used in limited circumstances, for delivery deadlines that are
the result of an unanticipated situation, and not a circumstance that could have been reasonably
anticipated or averted by advance City planning.
☐ Project or research continuity: Product, systems, services or data must comply with an ongoing
project, research, data, testing or analysis without a compromise in the integrity of the project.
Also, this should be a situation that cannot be replicated by another company because there is a
Public Works and Utilities Department
100 Oyster Bay Ave. N. • Bremerton, WA 98312 • (360) 473-5920 • FAX (360) 473-5360
Page 2 VENDOR NAME August 3, 2022
legal or physical obstruction to disclosing the project information to allow another company the
opportunity to replicate. Examples include situations where a company has legal and/or
proprietary rights to customization such as software code, or to data; or testing or data is collected
through a unique measuring instrument that cannot be accurately duplicated and offered by
another vendor.
☐ Requirement by funding source: Lender, grantor (such as federal government) or other
provider of funds requires the specific product, service or system. Attach a copy of the document
that clearly shows such a requirement is imposed by the funding source.
☐ Legal monopoly: Only one supplier, such as electricity, water, or sewage.
☐ Trial and evaluation projects: A limited duration, limited scope pilot, trial or evaluation of a
product, range of products or services. A trial or evaluation project would typically be part of
establishing a standard for a City department, or to pilot a particular product or services for a City
need. Describe the pilot, specify the scope of the pilot, and attach information to confirm that the
pilot is part of a purposeful department pilot initiative.
☐ Other. Describe. Why is this the only company that can provide the sole source product or
service? The reference section reference section explains why a particular product, manufacturer
or service is necessary. The section below discusses why the company you request is the only
available company.
Cost/Quote support:
See attached quotes and service agreements. Our staff believes this is a fair and reasonable
price.
Therefore, it is my determination that it is in the City’s best interests to purchase Cummins
generators and generator services through direct negotiation, pursuant to BMC 2.76.090 and
2.76.010, and that sole source purchase of these Cummins generators and generator services is
justified for this procurement.
Recommended by:
________________________________ ________________________________
Cami Apfelbeck, Water Utility Manager Eric Burris, WWTP Manager
Approved by:
________________________________
Thomas Knuckey, Public Works and Utilities Director
Cami Apfelbeck Digitally signed by Cami Apfelbeck
Date: 2022.08.03 11:35:35 -07'00'
Eric J. Burris Digitally signed by Eric J. Burris
Date: 2022.08.03 12:11:49
-07'00'
Tom Knuckey Digitally signed by Tom Knuckey
Date: 2022.08.03 13:45:52 -07'00'
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Change Order No. 2 to the Public Works
Agreement with Utter Associates, Inc for
Design and Installation of Audio-Visual
Equipment at the Bremerton Municipal Court
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Municipal Court
Presenter: Melinda Monroe
Phone: (360) 473-5306
SUMMARY:
The City’s contractor, Utter Associates has completed design and installation of the new Audio Visual
Equipment at the Bremerton Municipal Court, and made a request for a final change order in the
amount of $7,358.43 bringing the total changes to the agreement to $33,369.57 and bringing the new
total contract price to: $185,969.57. This is an aggregated 21% increase to the original contract cost
requiring City Council approval. The Contractor has agreed to this final contract amount. Change
order 1 included a re-routing of conduit directly to the IT room and Change order 2 includes extra
cabling and connecting equipment not included in the original order placed by the contractor. This
change was not provided to the City until our September close-out. All work is signed off and agreed
upon and this request is considered a typical final materials charge, approved by the City as there
were not as-builts for planning.
ATTACHMENTS:
Change order 2
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): no change
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Change Order 2 to the Public Works Agreement with Utter Associates in the
amount of $7,385.43 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 11/09/2021
4J
Page 1 of 3
Contract Modification 2 – Utter Associates, Inc.
Rev. 09/2021
CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NO. 2
TO THE PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BREMERTON AND UTTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT: Municipal Court Audio Visual Systems Upgrade - contract number: 6487
CONSULTANT: Utter Associates, Inc.
DATE: October 4, 2023
THIS CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS THE
AGREEMENT (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton and Utter
Associates, Inc. as entered into on February 16, 2023 and as modified on April 4, 2023.
All provisions in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified
by this document.
For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the
Contract are as follows:
I.
Section I. Scope , is modified as follows:
See additional Scope of Work items as attached in Exhibit A.
Section II. Term , is modified as follows:
NO CHANGE
Section III. Compensation , is modified as follows:
The original contract amount was one hundred fifty-two thousand and six-hundred Dollars
($152,600.00). Modification No. 1 to this agreement resulted in an increase to the total contract
price making the new total contract amount: one-hundred seventy-eight thousand, five hundred
eighty-four dollars and fourteen cents ($178,584.14). The City shall pay the Contractor for the
additional work described above, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed seven
thousand three-hundred and eighty-five dollars and forty-three cents, ($7,385.43) including sales
tax and permits, for a total amended contract amount of one-hundred eighty-five thousand, nine
hundred sixty-nine dollars and fifty-seven cents ($185,969.57), including this Contract
Modification.
C. Payment Schedule:
20% due 15 days after contract signing ....................................... $29,709.45
Part 1: As invoiced for design, system integration, equipment, removal,
bonding, delivery and sales tax (up to on-site work)* minus
retainage...................................................................................... $79,411.89
Page 2 of 3
Contract Modification 2 – Utter Associates, Inc.
Rev. 09/2021
Part 2: As invoiced for installation through substantial completion including
sales tax (on-site)
*minus retainage......................................................... $69,462.80 $76,848.23
Total: ...............................................................................$178,584.14 185,969.57
5% retainage hold-back, due 45 days after project acceptance ...$ 8,929.21
$ 9,298.48
Progress Payments. Contractor shall invoice the City for completed work per
payment schedule in Exhibits A and B and at the above payment schedule,
as soon as possible, after the first of each month, the Contractor shall submit
to the City an invoice for payment for the Work performed for each Project
in the preceding month less any retainage held per the schedule and rates in
Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
II.
Contractor accepts all requirements of this Contract Modification by endorsing below.
Contractor further agrees that this Contract Modification constitutes full and final
settlement of all of the Consultant’s claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind,
including without limitation, costs of delays related to any work either covered or affected
by this Contract Modification, claims related to on-site or home office overhead, or lost
profits. This Contract Modification does not limit the City’s right to bring a claim for past
performance.
The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Contract Modification as to the
changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item, including any and all supervision
costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of
time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work due to said Contract Modification.
This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
It is understood that this Contract Modification shall be effective when approved by the City
of Bremerton.
The parties whose names appear below warrant that they are authorized to enter into a
contract modification that is binding on the parties of this contract. In addition, Contractor
warrants that it has or will inform the surety of this change, and shall take appropriate action
to modify any bonds required under the contract to address this change.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modification on the day
and year first written above.
Page 3 of 3
Contract Modification 2 – Utter Associates, Inc.
Rev. 09/2021
UTTER ASSOCIATES, INC THE CITY OF BREMERTON
By: By:
Print Name: Print Name:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
By: By:
KYLIE J. FINNELL, Bremerton City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Contract Modification Rev. 09 2021.docx
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Ordinance No. 5484 to amend and
re-establish City Rates and Fees for 2024
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: All
Presenter: Mike Riley
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Each year, as part of the budget process, the various City departments review their
charges, rates and fees for services and make recommendations on any changes needed. The
attached included recommended changes to fees charged by the various departments.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 5484; and 2) Exhibit A Updated 11/1/23 12:56 PM
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Impacts to revenues are dependent on the
demand for services. The 2024 proposed budget does anticipate the approval of the ordinance and
related rate tables.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. 5484 amending and re-establishing City Rates and Fees for 2024.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4K
Updated
Page 1 of 2
2024 Rates & Fees
ORDINANCE NO. 5484
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending and reestablishing rates and fees
for services established in Ordinance No. 5460 relating to Animal
Control, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (“BKAT”),
Department of Community Development, Department of Financial
Services, Fire Department, Gold Mountain Golf Course, Ivy Green
Cemetery, Kitsap Conference Center, Municipal Court, Parking,
Parks and Recreation Department, Police Department, Public
Records, Department of Public Works and Utilities, Tax & License,
Telecommunications, Transportation Benefit District, and other
related services.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by this ordinance, desires to amend and reestablish
the rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5460; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rate Tables Amended and Reestablished. The rates and fees
relating to Animal Control, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (“BKAT”), Department of
Community Development, Department of Financial Services, Fire Department, Gold Mountain
Golf Course, Ivy Green Cemetery, Kitsap Conference Center, Municipal Court, Parking, Parks
and Recreation Department, Police Department, Public Records, Department of Public Works
and Utilities, Tax & License, Telecommunications, Transportation Benefit District, and other
related services, as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5460, are hereby amended and
reestablished in their entirety as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this ordinance, said
exhibit is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Rate Tables - Effective Date. The amendment and
reestablishment of rate tables as set forth in Section 1 above shall be effective January 1, 2024.
SECTION 3. 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 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
Page 2 of 2
2024 Rates & Fees
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of November, 2023.
_________________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
Approved this ________ day of November, 2023.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2023.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2023.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
2023 RATES & FEES2024
RATES & FEES
City of Bremerton
Ordinance No. 5460
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rate Table Page
ANIMAL CONTROL ............................................................................................. 1
BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT) ............................................. 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 3
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ............................................................ 11
FIRE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................................ 12
GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE ...................................................................... 14
IVY GREEN CEMETERY ....................................................................................... 15
KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER ........................................................................... 16
MUNICIPAL COURT ............................................................................................ 17
PARKING ........................................................................................................... 18
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ............................................................... 20
POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................ 26
PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................... 27
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES .................................................. 28
TAX & LICENSE ................................................................................................... 29
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................... 30
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT…………………………………………………………….31
2023 Rates & Fees 1 | Page
TABLE A ANIMAL CONTROL FEES
1. Licenses for Dogs and Cats
a) For Each Cat Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering)
Annual $7.507.00
3‐Years $15.00
Lifetime $25.00
b) For Each Dog Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering)
Annual $12.5012.00
3‐Year $25.00
Lifetime $45.00
c) For Each Cat Not Spayed or Neutered $37.5040.00
d) For Each Dog Not Spayed or Neutered $37.5050.00
e) Senior Citizen Permanent Dog/Cat $12.5012.00
f) Replacement Tag $1.003.00
g) Additional License Fee (for late renewal) $10.00
2. License for Chickens
a) Annually up to five (5) chickens $12.50
b) Senior permanent for up to five (5) chickens $12.50
3. Impound and Redemption Fees ‐ Domestic Animals
a) Impound $45.00
b) Vaccination $45.00
c) Boarding (per day) $20.00
d) Medical care Case dependent
e) Microchip $30.00
4. Impound and Redemption Fees ‐ Livestock
a) Impound $60.00
b) Boarding (per day) $40.00
c) Medical care Case dependent
d) Special Transportation fee $120.00
2 | Page
TABLE B BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)
1. PRE‐PRODUCTION (STANDARD RATE)
a) Equipment Consultation $109.00/hour
b) Program Development $109.00/hour
c) Research $109.00/hour
d) Location Scout (RT travel billed separately) $109.00/hour
e) Scripting $109.00/hour
f) Graphics Development $109.00/hour
2. PRODUCTION (STANDARD RATE)*
a) Set‐up, Shooting, Breakdown $109.00/hour
b) Production $109.00/hour
c)b) BreakdownTravel (portal to portal) $109.00/hour
*minimum of 2 hours for any productionsProduction at Standard Rate applies to qualified remote meeting
location/client‐owned equipment or zoom coverage for government meetings with 1 staff onsite, 1 staff
on call or rate for BKAT studio production
3. PRODUCTION (FIELD RATE)
a) BKAT‐owned equipment, 1 staff filming onsite $130.00/hour
b) BKAT‐owned equipment with crew of 2‐5 filming onsite $ $183.00/hour
LIVE STREAM SURCHARGE
(Support & Data Costs) $27.60/hour
Live stream surcharge applies to live field productions only
WEEKEND/HOLIDAY SURCHARGE
(Friday after 5pm, Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
Multiplied by applicable Standard and/or Field Production rates 1.5 x rate/hour
3.4. POST PRODUCTION
a) Edit $109.00/hour
b) Voice Over $109.00/hour
b)c) File processing, Playback Scheduling, Indexing, Archiving $109.00/hour
4.5. BKAT MEMBER TRAINING
a) Studio ‐ 3 hours of camera and director training – max 4 people No Charge
b) Edit – First 3 hours No Charge
Additional hours $109.00/hour
5.6. MISCELLANEOUS
a) Cancellation fee (equivalent of 2 hour minimum charge)Studio rental for non‐members
$109.00/hour218.00
a)b) 32 GB thumb drive for video storage $5.00 each
BKAT Staff as crew Additional $109.00/hour
2023 Rates & Fees 3 | Page
6.7. MEMBERSHIP (ANNUAL)
a) Individual Resident (within Kitsap County) $25.00
b) Individual Non‐Resident $50.00
c) Organization – Resident (within Kitsap County) $75.00
d) Organization – Non‐Resident $150.00
8. 7. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
BKAT will produce a non—commercial PSA (subject to BKAT guidelines found in the current BKAT
Policy Handbook) with or without voiceover to . The public service announcement will air on BKAT
for a minimum of two weeks. Client receives a digital copy for their own purposes.
$109.00/hour
9. PUBLIC RECORDS DUPLICATION
a) Duplicate video tape to DVD (time dependent on meeting length) $109.00/hour
b) Duplicate video tape to digital downloadable file
(time dependent on meeting length plus conversion process) $109.00/hour
c) Duplicate DVD to digital downloadable file
(time dependent on conversion process) $109.00/hour
4 | Page
TABLE C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. CODE ENFORCEMENT
a) ABATEMENTS
Dangerous Building $900 + Direct Service and Supply Cost
Garbage & Weed $640 + Direct Service and Supply Cost
b) ABANDONED PROPERTY FINES & PENALTIES
Failure to Register $1,000 + $100 per day
Failure to Inspect, Maintain, and/or Secure $1,000 + $100 per day
c) RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION FINES & PENALTIES
Failure to Register and File a Declaration of Compliance as Required
$1,000 + $100 per day
Failure to Obtain a Certificate of Inspection When Required
$1,000 + $100 per day
2. PLANNING
a) SUBDIVISIONS
Boundary Line Adjustment $365
Preliminary Short $1000 + $150/lot
Preliminary Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $2500 (base) + per lot
1‐100 lots $150/lot
101‐200 lots $100/lot
201 + lots $75/lot
Final Short $630 + $40/lot
Final Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $945 + 40/lot
Minor Amendment $630 (no lot fee)
Extension $630 (no lot fee)
b) SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Substantial Development Permit $1300
Conditional Use Permit – Type II $850
Conditional Use Permit – Type III $1750
Shoreline Variance $1750
Permit Revision $325
Shoreline Exemption $100
c) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
Checklist $320
Environmental Impact Statement Review/Adoption $650 +
additional cost of expertise
2023 Rates & Fees 5 | Page
d) PRE‐APPLICATION CONFERENCE $100
e) ZONING ORDINANCE
Ordinance Amendments
Text $740
Rezone (Map Amendment) $740
Variance
Administrative $325
Public Hearing/Single Family $500
Public Hearing/Other $1750
Development Agreements $1600
Conditional Use Permit
Single Family Residential Type II $350
Single Family Residential Type III $500
Commercial / Non‐Residential / Multifamily – Type II $850
Commercial / Non‐Residential / Multifamily – Type III $1750
Non‐Conforming Use Determination $275
Director’s Code Interpretation $175
Zoning Code Verification Hourly Rate
f) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Text or Map Amendment $1500
Combined Text and Map Amendment $2500
g) MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
Application $1500
h) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Conceptual Design Conference $500
Design Response Conference $500
i) CRITICAL AREA REVIEW Hourly Rate
(Dangerous trees, tree removal in sloped area, etc.)
j) FORESTRY Hourly Rate
Conversion Harvest Option Plan
3. MISCELLANEOUS FEES
a) APPEAL (to Hearing Examiner) $350
b) Hourly Rate $73.00
c) Technology Surcharge on Permits 5% of Permit Fee
(Permit Surcharge Levied on Fees Noted with *)
d) Third‐Party Technical Review and Verification Actual Cost
(Geotechnical Evaluation, Habitat Review, Structural Engineering Review, Etc.)
6 | Page
4. SITE DEVELOPMENT
a) SITE PLAN REVIEW
Commercial / Non‐Residential / Multifamily – Type II $1,000
b) SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT* $1,000
c) GRADING PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEES* Refer to Exhibit 4
5. BUILDING
a) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY $73.00
b) BUILDING PERMIT FEES* Refer to Exhibit 1
c) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE 65% of the building permit fee as set forth in Exhibit 1
d) ESTABLISHED “BASIC” PLAN REVIEW 50% of Plan Review Fee
Pursuant to DCD policy
e) BUILDING PERMIT FEE FOR REROOF* Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1
f) MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES*
Residential Refer to Exhibit 2
Commercial / Non‐Residential / Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1
g) PLUMBING PERMIT FEES*
Residential Refer to Exhibit 3
Commercial / Non‐Residential / Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1
h) Stop Work Fee 100% of permit fee
2023 Rates & Fees 7 | Page
EXHIBIT 1
BUILDING AND OTHER PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION1 FEE
$1.00 TO $500.00 $35.00
$501.00 TO $2,000.00 $35.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $100.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $40,000 $80.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $11.00 for each additional $1,000.00,
or fraction thereof, to and including $40,000
$40,001.00 to $100,000.00 $498.00 for the first $40,000; plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00,
or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1,038.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,838.00for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 to 5,000,000.00 $6,338.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to include $5,000,000.00
$5,000,001.00 and over $18,338.00 for the first $5,000,000.00; plus $1.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum
charge – two hours)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re‐inspection fees assessed under provisions of this
chapter shall be as follows (per inspection):
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
(minimum charge – one‐half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to plans (minimum charge – one‐half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and
inspections, or both
Actual Costs2
6. Manufactured Home Setup Fee Foundation Bid Price valuation used in Exhibit 1
7. Moved Building Permit Fee (not including other
required permits)
$100.00
8. Demolition permit Fee: 3 cents per square foot, with a
minimum charge of
$100.00
9. Energy Code Plan Review Surcharge for New Single
Family Residences
$50.00
1 Valuation includes fair market value of labor and materials.
2 Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.
8 | Page
EXHIBIT 2
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance and Heaters Fee
1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $25.00
2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been
canceled or finaled $7.25
Unit Fee Schedule (Note: The following do not include permit‐issuing fee)
1. Furnaces
For the installation or relocation of each forced‐air or gravity‐type furnace or burner,
including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h
(29.3 kW) $14.80
For the installation or relocation of each forced‐air or gravity‐type furnace or burner,
including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $18.20
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14.80
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor‐
mounted unit heater $14.80
2. Appliance Vents
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not
included in an appliance permit $7.25
3. Repairs or Additions
For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit,
cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling
system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $13.70
4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3
horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $14.70
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower (10.6
kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000
Btu/h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) $27.15
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7
kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000
Btu/h (146.6 kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) $37.20
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5
kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000
Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) $55.45
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176
kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) $92.65
5. Air Handlers
For each air‐handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 L/s),
including ducts attached thereto
Note: This fee does not apply to an air‐handling unit which is a portion of a factory‐
assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit
is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code $10.65
2023 Rates & Fees 9 | Page
For each air‐handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 :s) $18.10
6. Evaporative Coolers
For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $10.65
7. Ventilation and Exhaust
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.25
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air‐conditioning system
authorized by a permit $10.65
For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts
for such hood $10.65
8. Incinerators
For the installation or relocation of each domestic‐type incinerator $18.20
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial‐type incinerator $14.50
9. Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classed
in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table $10.65
For each gas piping system $10.00
Other Inspections and Fees
Inspections outside of normal business hours, per
hour (minimum charge – two hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Re‐inspection fees assessed under provisions of this
chapter shall be as follows (per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated,
per hour (minimum charge – one‐half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which
an initial review has been completed (minimum
charge – one‐half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
10 | Page
EXHIBIT 3
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance
1. For issuing each permit $25.00
2. For issuing each supplemental permit $10.00
Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to items 1 and 2 above)
1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including
water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefore) $7.00
2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $15.00
3. Rainwater systems – per drain (inside building) $7.00
4. For each cesspool (where permitted) $25.00
5. For each private sewage disposal system $40.00
6. For each water heater and/or vent $7.00
7. For each gas piping system $10.00
8. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent,
except kitchen‐type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $7.00
9. For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating
equipment, each $7.00
10. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $7.00
11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection
devices therefore $7.00
12. For atmospheric‐type vacuum breakers not included in item 12:
1 to 5 $5.00
Over 5, each $1.00
13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum
breakers:
2 inch (51 mm) diameter and smaller $7.00
Over 2 inch (51 mm) diameter $15.00
14. For each graywater system $40.00
15. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system $30.001
16. For each annual cross‐connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding
initial test ) $30.001
17. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a
specific gas $50.00
18. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s) $5.00
Other Inspections and Fees
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re‐inspection fee Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions
to approved plans (minimum charge – one‐half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
2023 Rates & Fees 11 | Page
EXHIBIT 4
GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $23.50
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $49.25
10,001 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards
(7645.5 m3), plus $24.50 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,456 m3 to 152,911 m3) $269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic yards
(76,455 m3), plus $13.25 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
200,001 cubic yards (152,912 m3) or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards
(152,911 m3), plus $7.25 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to approved plans (minimum charge – one‐half
hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
GRADING PERMIT FEES1
50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less $23.50
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $37.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3)
plus $17.50 for each additional 100 cubic
yards (76.5 m3) or fraction thereof
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $194.50 for the first 1,000 cubic yards
(764.6 m3), plus $14.50 for each additional
1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $325.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3), plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof
100,001 cubic yards (76,456 m3) or more $919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455
m3), plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours
(minimum charge – two hours) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re‐inspection fees assessed under provisions
of this chapter shall be as follows (per
inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (minimum charge – one‐half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
1The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original
permit and the fee shown for the entire project.
12 | Page
TABLE D DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
1. CHECK HANDLING FEE $40.00
2023 Rates & Fees 13 | Page
TABLE E FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES
a) BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands / Displays $100/stand/year
b) BMC 9.48.020(9) Cash Bond
Fireworks Stand Clean‐Up (refundable) $50/stand/year
Citywide Fireworks Clean‐up Fee (non‐refundable) $50/stand/year
c) BMC 18.06
Ambulance Services $75.00/vehicle
Ambulance Inspections $75.00/vehicle
2. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE
a) ALS—1 $791.00953.00
b) ALS – 2 $884.001082.00
c) BLSE $620.00758.00
d) Mileage $16.8018.00/mile
e) Itemized EMS Fees (one charge per transport)
ECG $70.00
IV/10 $50.00
O2 $50.00
SPO2 $15.00
CSPINE $40.00
End Tidal CO2 $30.00
C‐PAP $175.00
3. EMS SERVICE CALL TO ASSISTED LIVING, LONG TERM CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES
$100$500 After first response per quarter
4. RE‐INSPECTION FEE $73.00
5. HAZARD MATERIALS RESPONSE
a) Rice Hull Ash Actual Cost per Bag
b) Absorbent Pads Actual Cost per Bag
6. STAND‐BY‐TIME
a) Fire Engine w/Crew of 2 $155.001 + $150.00 = $305.00/hour
b) Fire Engine w/Crew of 3 $155.001 + $225.00 = $380.00/hour
c) Fire Engine w/Crew of 4 $155.001 + $300.00 = $455.00/hour
7. ACTIVE FIREFIGHTING
a) Fire Engine Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate1
b) Aerial Ladder Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate1
1Washington Fire Chiefs Association Wage & Equipment Rates for the Washington State Fire Service
14 | Page
8. FIRE WATCH $75.00$100/hour
9. AFTER HOURS INSPECTION $75.00$100/hour – 2 hour Minimum
10. RUSH PLAN REVIEW $500.00$100/hour – 2 hour
Minimum plus Standard Fees
11. OPERATIONAL PERMIT $100.00
12. FIRE SAFETY OFFICERS $75.00$100/hour – 2 hour minimum
13. FALSE FIRE ALARM $200.00
2023 Rates & Fees 15 | Page
TABLE F GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
1. CASCADE COURSE (prices do not include sales tax)
a) Friday 18 Holes $46.00$52.00
b) Weekday 18 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $42.00$48.00
c) Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $55.00$58.00
d) Weekday 9 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $30.00$34.00
e) Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $32.00$34.00
f) Continuation Fee $32.00
g) Twilight Weekday (Mon‐Thurs) $30.00
h) Twilight Weekend/Holiday $32.00$34.00
i) League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $26.00
j) Junior 18 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $18.00
k) Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $18.00
l) 36 Hole Special (Mon‐Thurs) $95.00
m) 36 Hole Special (Fri‐Sun) $110.00
n) Senior Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2) $280.00
o) Regular 10 Round Punch Card $320.00
p) Junior 10 Round Punch Card $130.00
q) Low Income Sr. Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2) $130.00
r) Daily Private Cart $20.00$22.00
s) Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $85.00
2. OLYMPIC COURSE (prices do not include sales tax)
a) Friday 18 Holes $75.00$81.00
b) Weekday 18 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $62.00$72.00
c) Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $85.00$90.00
d) Weekday 9 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $36.00$38.00
e) Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $46.00$48.00
f) Continuation Fee $35.00
g) Twilight Weekday (Mon‐Thurs) $36.00$37.00
h) Twilight Weekend/Holiday $46.00$48.00
i) League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $26.00
j) Junior 18 Holes (Mon‐Thurs) $28.00
k) Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $28.00
l) 36 Hole Special (Mon‐Thurs) $95.00
m) 36 Hole Special (Fri‐Sun) $110.00
n) Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $120.00
o) Olympic Punch Ccard Pplus $30.00$32.00
p) Annual Pass Single $2,600.00$2,700.00
q) Annual Pass Couple $3,800.00$3,900.00
r) Annual Pass Family $4,400.00
s) Annual Pass Junior (Mon‐Thurs) $700.00
1. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May‐September Not to Exceed Rate)
May be used for twilight any day of the week including holidays.
2. Ages 62 & up with household income < $18,000.
16 | Page
TABLE G IVY GREEN CEMETERY
1. GRAVE SITES
a) Adult $1,552.00$1,600.00
b) Infant (Not in Infant Sections) $1,552.00$1,600.00
c) Infant Section $388.00$400.00
d) Veteran $902.00$930.00
e) Perpetual Care (collected at time of site sale) 10% of site fee
2. LINERS (Subject to sales tax)
a) Casket Liner $1,030.00$1,060.00
b) Cremation Liner $252.00$255.00
c) Infant Liner $420.00$430.00
d) Oversized Liner $1,380.00$1,400.00
3. OPENING AND CLOSING
a) Casket $905.00$930.00
b) Cremation $324.50$350.00
c) Infant $634.50$650.00
d) Veteran $543.00$560.00
4. DISINTERNMENT
a) Adult $1,940.00$2,000.00
b) Infant $1,940.00$2,000.00
c) Urn $311.00$330.00
d) Removal (only) $1,282.00$1,320.00
5. MARKER SETTING FEES
a) Setting Fee $400.00$410.00
6. GRAVE SIDE SERVICES
a) Chairs & Awning $450.00$460.00
7. MARKERS (Subject to sales tax)
a) Markers Value based on size and type of marker
2023 Rates & Fees 17 | Page
TABLE H KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER
All Rates are Minimum Rates
1. ROOM RENTAL (in conjunction with food minimums) 1
a) Puget Sound Ballroom‐ per section (4 sections) $500.001200.00
b) Oyster Bay Room $250.00500.00
c) Marina Vista 1 & 2 – per section $200.00600.00
d) Marina Vista 3 $500.00800.00
e) Glacier Cove 1 & 2 – per section $200.00600.00
f) Fountain Room $850.002000.00
2. RECURRING ROOM RENTAL (at least 35 events per year)
a) Room fee waived with food purchase for at least 60 people.
1. 501(c)3 Organizations receive 50% off Room Rental rate with purchase of an Event Package.
18 | Page
TABLE I MUNICIPAL COURT
1. EX PARTE FILING FEE $20.00
2. HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL $73.00
3. TRAFFIC PENALTIES
a) Inattention to Driving $139.00
b) Automated Traffic Safety Camera Violations $139.00
4. INSURANCE DISMISSAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE $25.00
5. CERTIFIED DOCUMENT FEE (per document) $5.00
6. COPY FEE (per page) $0.50
7. COPY FEE (made to CD or other electronic device) $20.00
8. COPY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDING (per CD) $10.00
9. APPEAL PREPARATION FEE $40.00
10. NON‐SUFFICIENT FUNDS FEE (NSF Fee) $40.00
2023 Rates & Fees 19 | Page
TABLE J PARKING
1. PARKING FEES*
a) On‐Street Locations
3 hours $20.00
10 hours $30.00
b) Off‐Street Location
3 hours $20.00
10 hours $30.00
c) Parking Garage Monthly Permit $200.00/month
d) Administrative Immobilization Fee (i.e. boot) $100.00/boot
2. RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS*
a) Residential Parking Permits
First Two Permits NO COST
Each additional permit issued not‐to‐exceed four permits per unit $100.00
b) Petition for Creation of Residential Restricted Parking Zone $100.00
c) Replacement of parking permit $10.00/permit
d) Visitor Parking Permits NO COST
e) Service/Landlord Permits NO COST
3. PARKING PENALTIES
a) Overtime or Reparking
1st Violation in 180 Days $20.00
2nd Violation in 180 Days $60.00
3rd or More Violation in 180 Days $180.00
b) Non‐Payment in Collection Devices
1st Violation in 180 days $20.00
2nd Violation in 180 days $60.00
3rd Violation in 180 days $180.00
c) Loading Zones $25.00
d) No Parking
1st Violation in 180 days $30.00
2nd Violation in 180 days $60.00
3rd Violation in 180 days $180.00
e) Wrong Way $35.00
f) Parked on Sidewalk $30.00
g) Fire Hydrant $35.00
h) 12" From Curb $30.00
i) Physically Disabled (Public and Private) $450.00
j) Counterfeiting or User of Counterfeit Permits,
Tokens or Script $500.00
Unauthorized Use of Permits $250.00
k) Blocked Driveway $35.00
l) Expired Tabs $45.00
m) 30 Foot to Stop Sign $30.00
20 | Page
n) Double Parked $35.00
o) No Stopping/No Standing $30.00
p) Failure to Respond – Additional Penalty $25.00
q) All parking infractions set forth in Chapter 10.10 BMC not identified above $30.00
*Rates are not‐to‐exceed rates. These rates shall apply unless reduced by the Department of Financial
Services for a specific site or use.
2023 Rates & Fees 21 | Page
TABLE K PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Non‐Resident Fee – Base Fee plus 25%
All Rates Listed Are “Not To Exceed” Fees
9. FACILITY USE RENTAL RATES
Facility use policies apply.
Appropriate taxes are included in rates unless otherwise noted.
Regular Groups (10 or more meetings a year, reserved in advance) may receive up to a 20%
discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees.
a) SHERIDAN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER – ROOM RENTAL RATES
(Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Recreation and/or educational purposes only.
Per hour, two (2) hour minimum
Daytime (Monday – Friday: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM)
(i) Lounge $14.00
(ii) Room A, B/C, Conference Room $12.00
(iii) Gym $32.00$33.00
Evenings (Monday – Thursday: 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM)
(i) Lounge $30.00
(ii) Room A, B, Conference Room $24.00
(iii) Gym $43.00$44.00
(iv) Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $70.00$72.00
(v) Entire building – Up to eight (8) hours* $800.00$820.00
Friday Evening (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) & Saturday and Sunday
(i) Lounge $36.00
(ii) Room A, B, Conference Room $28.00
(iii) Gym $50.00$52.00
(iv) Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $82.00$84.00
(v) Entire building – Up to eight (8) hours* $825.00$850.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Per hour, two (2) hour minimum
Lounge $54.00
Room A, B, Conference Room $42.00
Gym $75.00$78.00
Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $123.00$126.00
Entire Building ‐ Up to eight (8) hours* $1,237.00$1,275.00
*Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires additional staffing fee at
$19.00$20.00 per hour.
22 | Page
b) BREMERTON SR. CITIZENS CENTER ‐ ROOM RENTAL RATES
(Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Per hour, two (2) hour minimum
Cardroom/Meeting Room $25.00
Main Room $49.00
Kitchen $25.00
Additional staffing per hour $19.00
Entire Facility up to eight (8) hours $546.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Per hour, (two ) 2 hour minimum
Cardroom/Meeting Room $37.50
Main Room $73.50
Kitchen $37.50
Additional staffing per hour $19.00
Entire Facility – Up to eight (8) hours $819.00
c)b) PARK SHELTERS – RESERVATION FEES
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless otherwise noted.
Bremerton residents may reserve park shelters beginning January 1st for the upcoming year. Non‐
resident reservations will be accepted beginning February 1st.
(Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Bachmann, Bataan, Lent Landing, Matan, NAD (Upper) Shelters and Gazebos
$32.00$33.00
Blueberry Shelter $55.00$57.00
Evergreen Shelter 1 $87.00$90.00
Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $43.00$44.00
Evergreen Shelter 4 (not reservable, first come first served) NO CHARGE
Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $47.00$48.00
Evergreen Amphitheatre with power $200.00
Kiwanis Park Shelter $45.00$46.00
Lions Park Shelter 1 $60.00$62.00
Lions Park Shelter 2 $45.00$46.00
Manette Park Shelter $45.00$46.00
Warren Avenue Playfield Shelter $45.00$46.00
Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $32.00$33.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Bachmann, Bataan, Lent Landing, Matan, NAD (Upper) Shelters and Gazebos
$48.00$49.50
Blueberry Shelter $82.50$85.50
Evergreen Shelter 1 $130.50$135.00
Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $64.50$66.00
Evergreen Shelter 4 (not reservable) NO CHARGE
Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $70.50$72.50
Evergreen Amphitheatre with power $300.00
2023 Rates & Fees 23 | Page
Kiwanis Park Shelter $67.50$70.00
Lions Park Shelter 1 $90.00$93.00
Lions Park Shelter 2 $67.50$69.50
Manette Park Shelter $67.50$69.50
Warren Avenue Playfield Shelter $67.50$69.50
Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $48.00$49.50
d)c) SPECIAL EVENTS, CELEBRATIONS, WEDDINGS
(Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Harborside Fountain Park (Waterfront plaza only, per four (4) hour session $45.00$50.00
Louis Mentor Boardwalk $545.00$560.00
Stage (20’ x 24’) –Available Memorial Day‐Labor Day (per day) $250.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Harborside Fountain Park (Waterfront plaza only, per four (4) hour session $67.50$75.00
Louis Mentor Boardwalk $817.50$840.00
Stage (20’x24’) – Available Memorial Day‐Labor Day (per day) $367.50$375.00
e)d) ATHLETIC FIELD – RESERVATIONS
Per hour unless noted
(Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL
Youth Use $18.50$19.00
Adult Use $34.00$35.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL $61.00$62.00
Game Fees
(i) Baseball/Softball $42.00$43.00
(ii) Soccer $64.00$66.00
(iii) Sand Volleyball $31.50
e) OUTDOOR COURT – RESERVATION
Per hour unless noted
‐ (Group A) NON‐COMMERCIAL – Rental
Basketball Court (Per Half Court) $5.00
Pickleball Court $5.00
Tennis Court $10.00
‐ (Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental
Basketball Court (Per Half Court) $7.50
Pickleball Court $7.50
Tennis Court $20.00
f) LIONS TENNIS COURT LIGHTS
1 token (1 hour) $3.00
6 tokens (6 hours) $14.50
24 | Page
f)g) BLUEBERRY PARK – P‐PATCH ANNUAL RATE
Non‐commercial gardening only.
Raised Beds $15.00
10’ x 20’ Beds $55.00
16’ x 30’ Beds $80.00
g) LIONS TENNIS COURT LIGHTS
1 token (1 hour) $3.00
6 tokens (6 hours) $14.50
2. PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES
a) NEW PROGRAMS See Section 3, subsection (a)
b) ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES
VOLLEYBALL
League Play (per team, per game) $31.00$32.00
Open Gym (Oct. – June) per person $5.00
Sand Volleyball $31.00$32.00
BASKETBALL
Men’s League Play (per team, per game) $67.00$74.00
Boy’s League Play (per team, per game) $42.00$44.00
Boy’s League (Individual Registration ‐ per individual) $52.00$54.00
‐ PICKLEBALL (Indoor Program)
Drop In $4.00
10‐Visit Punchcard $32.00
SOFTBALL
Adult League Play (per team, per game) $50.40$51.40
Adult League – Players fee (per player, per game) $2.20$2.27
TOURNAMENTS (BASEBALL/SOFTBALL AND SOCCER)
INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS
c) Lions – One Day $463.00$486.00
d) Lions – Two Day $739.00$776.00
e) Lions – Three Day $983.00$1,032.00
f) Pendergast – One Day $609.00$640.00
g) Pendergast – Two Day $952.00$1,000.00
h) Pendergast – Three Day $1,155.00$1,213.00
2023 Rates & Fees 25 | Page
STATE TOURNAMENTS*
i) Lions – One Day $645.00$677.00
j) Lions – Two Day $962.00$1,010.00
k) Lions – Three Day $1,119.00$1,175.00
l) Pendergast – One Day $838.00$880.00
m) Pendergast – Two Day $1,119.00$1,175.00
n) Pendergast – Three Day $1,327.00$1,393.00
*Regional and National Tournaments cost to be negotiated depending on field preparation requirements.
3. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AND RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS
a) PROGRAM FEE FORMULAS. Except for the Sr. Citizens Trip program, participant fees for activities
(programs, classes, events, etc.) promoted by the Sr. Citizen Center and the Recreation Division are
established by the following formulas:
Activities when the instructor is on City payroll.
*Based on “Not‐to‐Exceed” rates
[(Total class hours including preparation) x (Instructor’s hourly wage) x (1.5 Administration
factor)] divided by (minimum # of students per activity)] + (the cost of group supplies divided by
minimum # of students) + Cost of individual class supplies, if applicable = Student class fee for
City of Bremerton Resident
Activities taught by contracted instruction.
*Based on “Not‐to‐Exceed” rates
[(Price per student required by the Instructor less class supply fees) x (1.5 Administration
factor)] + Class supply fees = Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident.
Non‐Resident Fees for Recreational Programs.
For recreation classes, programs, and rentals – ranging from:
$5.00 to $25.00 add on 25%
$25.01 to $50.00 add a flat $6.25
$50.01 to $100.00 add a flat $12.50
$100.01 to $200.00 add a flat $25.00
$200.01 to $400.00add a flat $50.00
$400.01 to $750.00 add a flat $100.00
$750.01 to $1,000.00 add a flat $150.00
$1,000.00 + add a flat $200.00
b) SENIOR CENTER ACTIVITIES (AGE 55+)
Couples Membership is for two people, at least one needs to be 55 or better, who reside at the
same address.
Associate Memberships are for those individuals not yet 55 but still would like to participate in the
programs, trips and classes offered at the Center.
26 | Page
Senior Citizen – City Resident annual membership $20.00
Senior Citizen – Non‐Resident annual membership $35.00
Senior Center – City Resident Couples annual membership $32.00
Senior Center – Non‐Resident Couples annual membership $52.00
Senior Center – City Resident Associate annual membership $32.00
Senior Center – Non‐Resident Associate annual membership $52.00
Senior Center – Daily Drop‐In Fee (Non‐Class Activities, per person, per day)$4.00
c) SENIOR CENTER TRIPS Cost plus 25%
2023 Rates & Fees 27 | Page
TABLE L POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTS $10.00
2. FINGERPRINTS – 1st Card $10.00
a) Each Additional Card $10.00
3. CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK $10.00
4. ALARM COMPLIANCE FEE
a) 1st False Alarm in any 1 Quarter $60.00
b) 2nd False Alarm in the same Quarter $80.00
c) 3rd False Alarm in the same Quarter or Subsequent Alarms in a Calendar Quarter
$160.00
5. SERVICE FEE FOR ANTI‐HARASSMENT ORDER $50.00
6. SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS
a) Arrest Warrant $15.00 plus mileage
b) Subpoena $6.00 plus mileage
c) Preparation of return of service $5.00
Mileage (for each mile actually and necessarily traveled by a member of the Police Department in going to or returning from any
place of service, or attempted service) current business mileage rate allowed by the Internal Revenue Service.
7. TAXICABS
a) Taxicab Business Certificate $30.00/year
b) Taxicab Driver’s Certificate $30.00/year
c) Vehicle Decal $10.00/vehicle/year
d) Annual Renewal $30.00
e) Certificate Changes $10.00
f) Finger prints $10.00
g) WSP Background Check (effective 1/1/2019) $51.25
WSP Background Check (effective 7/1/2019) $71.25
8. CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS (Rates set by State subject to change)
a) New Permit (effective 1/1/2019) $49.25
b) Renewal Permit $32.00
c) Late Permit $42.00
d) Replacement $10.00
e) Firearm Dealer License $125.00
9. BODY WORN CAMERA RECORDINGS* per RCW 42.56.240(14) $60.00 per hour of video
*Research and Redaction Processing – Processing requires full playback of each video by the
processing technician before redaction begins to verify the involvement of each party in the footage
and ensure the footage is redacted in accordance with Washington state law. Please keep this in mind
when requesting footage from multiple BWCs or for footage for long timeframes.
28 | Page
TABLE M PUBLIC RECORD FEES
1. Copy or Print ‐ Maximum size is 11x17 (No fee for first 50 pages) $0.15/page
2. Scan – Maximum size is 11x17 (No fee for first 50 pages) $0.10/page
3. Electronic Files or Attachments uploaded to email, cloud‐based data storage service or other means of
electronic delivery $0.05/4 files
4. Transmission of Public Records in an Electronic Format $0.10/GB
5. Customized service charge for requests requiring the use of information technology expertise per RCW
42.56.120(3) Actual Costs
6. CD/DVD $2.00
7. Digital Storage Media or Device Actual Cost
8. Postage or Delivery Charges Actual Costs
9. Certified copies of public records. The maximum size for photocopies is 11x17 $5.00 per document
10. Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos, Drawings, and Maps (Black and White) $8.00/page or
Actual Costs when performed by a Vendor
11. Color GIS Plotted Maps $5.00/sq. ft.
12. Other Documents:
a) Medical Records $19.00
b) Fire Incident/Investigation Reports $8.00
c) Budget
(Hard Copy) $70.00
(Electronic Version) $10.00
d) Annual Report
(Hard Copy) $35.00
(Electronic Version) $10.00
In addition to the above fees, each department may establish fees for records that do not fall into one of
the above categories. Each department and the City Clerk shall have the department's fee schedule
available for inspection upon request.
2023 Rates & Fees 29 | Page
TABLE N PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. RIGHT‐OF WAY USE PERMITS FEES
a) Type A (Short Term Use) Regular (Misc. Construction) $345.00
Dumpster – Individual personal use NO CHARGE
Dumpster – Commercial/Construction $345.00
b) Type B (Disturbance of ROW)
Sidewalk Repairs (2 inspections) NO CHARGE
Driveway, Transverse Street Patch and Spot Patches (2 inspections) $345.00
Frontage Improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, etc.); Longitudinal Street Patch;
and Utility Installation $4.32/ft with a $260.00 minimum
New Street $7.34/ft with a $880.00 minimum
Water & Sewer Mains & Laterals (ROW Permit) (2 inspections) $345.00
Additional Inspection $86.00/hour + equipment charges
c) Type C (Long Term Use)
Application and Processing $345.00
Annual Renewal $86.00$80.00
d) Type D Regular (Franchised Utility Routine Maintenance) $173.00
e) Plan Reviews $0.27/foot of improvement with $173.00 minimum
2. ADDITIONAL WORK $86.00/hour + Equipment Charges
3. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY VACATION $1,900.00
4. BMC 10.24 HOUSEMOVING/OVERSIZE LOADS $690.00+$75.00/mile to .10 of a mile
5. BANNER FEE INSTALL/REMOVAL $212.00
6. SIGN CREATION $COST
7. TRAFFIC CONTROL $86.00/hour + Equipment Charges
8. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
a) Barricades if not returned $30.00/barricade
b) Barricades $20.00 per barricade per day
c) Cones, if not returned or damaged $16.00/cone
d) Cones $2.00 per cone per day
e) Signs, if not returned or damaged $215.00/sign
f) Signs $18.00 per sign per day
g) Labor Rate Hourly (equipment not included) $86.00
9. BLOCK PARTY STREET CLOSURE $25.00
30 | Page
TABLE O TAX & LICENSE
1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES
a) BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation
Non‐Profit $25.00/60 days
Professional Fundraiser $675.00/60 days
b) BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $265.00/yr or $70.00/30 days
c) BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $700.00/yr
d) Dancers $100.00/yr
e) BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $150.00/veh/yr
f) BMC 5.16 Peddlers $75.00/yr or $25.00/30 days
g) BMC 5.36 Special Events $100.00/event
h) BMC 5.08 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $100/yr
i) Site Relocation $50.00
j) BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $400.00/30 days
2. BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
a) BMC 5.02 $75.00/yr
2023 Rates & Fees 31 | Page
TABLE P TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1. TOWER LEASE ‐ APPLICATION, RENEWAL AND ASSIGNMENT FEE $530.00
2. CABLE FRANCHISE APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSIT1 $3,588.00
1Actual cost will be based on staff time. City may require additional deposit(s) up to $3,500 per deposit if funds
are exhausted.
3. MASTER PERMIT ‐ APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSITS2 $5,125.00
2Actual cost will be based on staff time plus legal review. City may require additional deposit(s) up to $5,000
per deposit if funds are exhausted.
4. TELECOM LICENSE FEE $222.00/one time
32 | Page
TABLE Q TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
1. VEHICLE TAB FEE $20.00
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Ordinance No. 5485 to amend and
re-establish Utility Assessments, Rates, and
Fees, and Charges for 2024
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Financial Services and
PW&U
Presenter: Mike Riley/Tom
Knuckey
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Ordinance to amend and re-establish the 2024 Utility Assessments, Rates, Fees, and
Charges.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 5485; and 2) Exhibit A
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Misc. Fees and Charges were adjusted by change
in the Construction Cost Index for all urban consumers, Seattle for the month ending August 31,
2023 at 5.4%. The Utility rates are incorporated in the 2024 Proposed Budget.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. 5485 amending and re-establishing 2024 Assessments, Rates, Fees,
and Charges for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other related services.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4L
1
2024 Utilities Rates and Fees
ORDINANCE NO. 5485
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending and reestablishing the
assessments, rates, fees and charges established in Ordinance No.
5461 regarding rates and fees relating to the Department of Public
Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other
related services.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and reestablish the assessments,
rates, fees, and charges (“Rates and Fees”) relating to the Department of Public Works and
Utilities for general facility charges and water, wastewater, stormwater, and other related
services established in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5461; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rate Tables established. Rates and fees for services relating to the
Department of Public Works and Utilities for general facilities charges and water, wastewater,
stormwater, and other related services, as established in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5461, are
hereby amended and reestablished in their entirety as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this
ordinance, said exhibit is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Rate Tables – Effective Date. The amendment and
reestablishment of rate tables as set forth in Section 1 above shall be effective January 1, 2024.
SECTION 3. 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 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the _____ day of November, 2023.
_________________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
2
2024 Utilities Rates and Fees
Approved this ________ day of November, 2023.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ _________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2023.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2023.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
2023
GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES
Water based on meter size average normal flow
5/8" x 3/4" 6,680.00$
1" 6,680.00$
1" Commercial 9,153.00$
1 1/2" Commercial 53,443.00$
2" Commercial 53,443.00$
3" Commercial 133,609.00$
4" Commercial 267,217.00$
Greater than 4"
5/8" x 3/4" 7,797.00$
1" 7,797.00$
1" Commercial 9,669.00$
1 1/2" Commercial 54,581.00$
2" Commercial 54,581.00$
3" Commercial 140,351.00$
4" Commercial 280,699.00$
Greater than 4"
Stormwater (per IHSU)1,604.00$
CONNECTION FEES
Water Connection Fees*Inside Outside
5/8" x 3/4" 4,245.00$ 4,401.00$ 6,368.00$ 6,602.00$
1" 4,483.00$ 4,571.00$ 6,725.00$ 6,857.00$
1 1/2" 10,067.00$ 9,995.00$ 15,101.00$ 14,993.00$
2" 10,434.00$ 10,421.00$ 15,651.00$ 15,632.00$
3" 27,029.00$ 27,645.00$ 40,544.00$ 41,468.00$
4" 29,201.00$ 29,764.00$ 43,802.00$ 44,646.00$
6" 35,741.00$ 37,462.00$ 53,612.00$ 56,193.00$
8" 41,841.00$ 43,834.00$ 62,762.00$ 65,751.00$
10" 49,497.00$ 51,514.00$ 74,246.00$ 77,271.00$
12" and greater
Wet Tapping (Water Main Only, excluding excavation & backfill)*
4" 4,290.00$ 4,526.00$ 6,435.00$ 6,789.00$
6" 4,572.00$ 4,923.00$ 6,858.00$ 7,385.00$
8" 5,543.00$ 6,024.00$ 8,315.00$ 9,036.00$
10" 8,104.00$ 8,869.00$ 12,156.00$ 13,304.00$
12" 9,182.00$ 10,524.00$ 13,773.00$ 15,786.00$
** Greater than 12"
Actual time & material + equipment
Actual time & material + equipment
1,667.00$
277,719.00$
Case by Case basis
Wastewater based on meter size average normal flow
8,103.00$
8,103.00$
10,049.00$
56,726.00$
56,726.00$
145,867.00$
291,730.00$
Case by Case basis
138,860.00$
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
Inside Outside City Limits
6,943.00$
6,943.00$
9,513.00$
55,543.00$
55,543.00$
1 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
Wet Tapping (Water Main to Property Line)*Inside Outside
2" - fire service 5,985.00$ 5,950.00$ 8,978.00$ 8,925.00$
4" 13,712.00$ 15,119.00$ 20,568.00$ 22,679.00$
6" 13,513.00$ 14,998.00$ 20,270.00$ 22,497.00$
8" 15,320.00$ 15,994.00$ 22,980.00$ 23,991.00$
10" 18,514.00$ 20,530.00$ 27,771.00$ 30,795.00$
12" 20,212.00$ 22,257.00$ 30,318.00$ 33,386.00$
** Greater than 12"
Fire Hydrant Installation*
6" x 8" and smaller - service to property line 17,118.00$ 18,049.00$ 25,677.00$ 27,074.00$
6"x 10" - service to property line 17,267.00$ 18,204.00$ 25,901.00$ 27,306.00$
6"x 12" service to property line 17,431.00$ 18,375.00$ 26,147.00$ 27,563.00$
PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION FEES
Engineering Services**Inside Outside
Plan Check Fees
Main Extensions: per foot 0.62$ 0.65$ 0.93$ 0.98$
BUT not less than 414.00$ 460.00$ 621.00$ 690.00$
(Includes hydrants and appurtenances
and connection to water system)
Pump Stations 3,456.00$ 3,640.00$ 5,184.00$ 5,460.00$
Fireline Extension 173.00$ 190.00$ 260.00$ 285.00$
Irrigation Systems 173.00$ 180.00$ 260.00$ 270.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) plus equipment 86.00$ 90.00$ 129.00$ 135.00$
Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees ***
Preliminary Drainage Plans
Residential Development 690.00$ 730.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development 430.00$ 730.00$ N/A N/A
Plus per IHSU 22.00$ 22.77$
Final Detailed Drainage Plans
Residential Development (per lot)
0 - 20 Lots 73.00$ 80.00$ N/A N/A
21 - 50 Lots 65.00$ 70.00$ N/A N/A
51 - 100 Lots 52.00$ 60.00$ N/A N/A
100+ Lots 43.00$ 50.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 518.00$ 550.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development
per IHSU 43.00$ 50.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 518.00$ 550.00$ N/A N/A
Resubmittal Fees
First Resubmittal No Charge No Charge N/A N/A
Subsequent Resubmittal 518.00$ 550.00$ N/A N/A
Actual time & material + equipment
2 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
Field Inspection Fees Inside Outside
Water main extensions (per foot) 1.73$ 1.73$ 2.60$ 2.60$
but not less than: 605.00$ 605.00$ 908.00$ 908.00$
Pump Station 3,456.00$ 3,456.00$ 5,184.00$ 5,184.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) 86.00$ 86.00$ 129.00$ 129.00$
Wastewater Fees **
Lateral Connection at P/L 173.00$ 173.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$
Lateral Connection at Main 432.00$ 432.00$ 648.00$ 648.00$
Conveyance Facility Ext. (Per Foot) 3.45$ 3.45$ 5.00$ 5.00$
but not less than: 864.00$ 864.00$ 1,296.00$ 1,296.00$
Pump Station 3,456.00$ 3,456.00$ 5,184.00$ 5,184.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) 86.00$ 86.00$ 129.00$ 129.00$
Storm Drainage Inspection Fees ***
Residential Development (per lot) 86.00$ 86.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development (per IHSU) 43.00$ 43.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 346.00$ 346.00$ N/A N/A
Conveyance Facility Extensions (per foot) 2.15$ 2.15$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 518.00$ 518.00$ N/A N/A
Unscheduled Inspections**** (per site visit) 86.00$ 86.00$ N/A N/A
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES
Office Services Inside Outside
New Account 24.00$ 25.00$ N/A N/A
Account Maintenance 5.00$ 5.00$ N/A N/A
Past Due Notice 3.50$ 3.50$ N/A N/A
Lien Recovery Charge 147.00$ 147.00$ N/A N/A
Utility/Lien Search Fee (Manual) per parcel 37.00$ 38.00$ N/A N/A
Park Reservation Fee (non-refundable) 210.00$ 210.00$ N/A N/A
Field Services
Pavement Restoration Charge
(refundable, if assessed and not required)
Asphalt Patch 2,359.00$ 2,359.00$ 3,539.00$ 3,539.00$
Concrete Patch 1,681.00$ 1,681.00$ 2,522.00$ 2,522.00$
Asphalt Trench 4,321.00$ 4,321.00$ 6,482.00$ 6,482.00$
Concrete Trench 5,179.00$ 5,179.00$ 7,769.00$ 7,769.00$
3 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
Field Services (continued)Inside Outside
County Road Permit N/A N/A N/A Cost Cost
Water Meter Installation
3/4" & 1" 184.00$ 184.00$ 276.00$ 276.00$
1-1/2" & 2" 290.00$ 290.00$ 435.00$ 435.00$
3" and greater
Water Meter Reactivation 69.00$ 69.00$ 104.00$ 104.00$
Water Meter Reinstallation 184.00$ 184.00$ 276.00$ 276.00$
Water Meter Deactivation 69.00$ 69.00$ 104.00$ 104.00$
Water Meter Tampering
Tampering Fee 501.00$ 501.00$ 752.00$ 752.00$
Tampering Repair
Fire Service - Detector, Meter & MXU 793.00$ 813.00$ 1,190.00$ 1,220.00$
Storz Adapter 420.00$ 462.00$ 630.00$ 693.00$
Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on
(Customer Request)
Regular Hours 69.00$ 69.00$ 104.00$ 104.00$
After Hours 267.00$ 290.00$ 290.00$ 435.00$
Delinquency Notice 26.00$ 26.00$ N/A N/A
Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on
(Delinquent Accounts)
Regular Hours 69.00$ 69.00$ N/A N/A
After Hours 267.00$ 290.00$ 190.00$ 435.00$
Flow and Pressure Test (Uncertified)
3/4" & 1" meters only 132.00$ 132.00$ 198.00$ 198.00$
1-1/2" & 2" meters only 237.00$ 237.00$ 356.00$ 356.00$
Larger than 2"
Meter Test Fee (based on meter size)
3/4" & 1" 289.00$ 289.00$ 434.00$ 434.00$
1-1/2" & 2" 374.00$ 374.00$ 561.00$ 561.00$
3" or greater
Utility Plant Locates
Regular Hours N/C N/C N/C N/C
After Hours 267.00$ 267.00$ 401.00$ 401.00$
Emergency N/C N/C N/C N/C
Utility Compliance Specialist
Inspection 118.00$ 118.00$ 177.00$ 177.00$
Administration Fee 50.00$ 50.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$
Utility Labor Rate Hourly (Eqp not included) 105.00$ 105.00$ 158.00$ 158.00$
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
4 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES
General Service - Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Meter Size
5/8 x 3/4 inches 15.28$ 15.81 22.91$ 23.71$
1 inch 17.46$ 18.07 26.21$ 27.13$
1 1/2 inch 24.83$ 25.70 37.25$ 38.55$
2 inch 33.36$ 34.53 50.02$ 51.77$
3 inch 63.29$ 65.51 94.91$ 98.23$
4 inch 117.59$ 121.71 176.38$ 182.55$
6 inch 418.09$ 432.72 627.14$ 649.09$
8 inch 1,527.20$ 1,580.65 2,290.82$ 2,371.00$
10 inch 5,446.89$ 5,637.53 8,170.31$ 8,456.27$
12 inch 20,476.59$ 21,193.27 30,714.87$ 31,789.89$
Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF)
Per HCF/Month 2.64$ 2.73 3.95$ 4.09
Non - Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF) 2.39$ 2.47 3.57$ 3.69
Fire Protection - Monthly Service Charge
Service Size
1 inch 31.71$ 32.82 47.54$ 49.20
1 1/2 inch 47.71$ 49.38 71.57$ 74.07
2 inch 62.03$ 64.20 93.04$ 96.30
3 inch 68.34$ 70.73 102.54$ 106.13
4 inch 74.50$ 77.11 111.75$ 115.66
6 inch 92.99$ 96.24 139.48$ 144.36
8 inch 123.80$ 128.13 185.70$ 192.20
10 inch 173.24$ 179.30 259.88$ 268.98
12 inch 247.50$ 256.16 371.25$ 384.24
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 4.77$ 4.94 7.16$ 7.41
- For Usage Other Than Firefighting
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen - Monthly Service Charge
General Service - meter size 5/8" x 3/4" 9.17$ 9.49 13.75$ 14.23
General Service - meter size 1" 10.48$ 10.84 15.73$ 16.28
Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF)
Per HCF/Month 1.58$ 1.64 2.37$ 2.45
Temporary/Construction Meter
1" Meter
Deposit 600.00$ 600.00 900.00$ 900.00$
Base Fee (per month) 17.46$ 18.07 26.20$ 27.00$
Set Up Fee & Removal Fee 396.00$ 396.00$ 594.00$ 594.00$
5 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES (CONTINUED)Inside Outside
Temporary/Construction Meter (continued)
Hydrant meter (3" Meter)
Deposit 4,000.00$ 4,000.00 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Base Fee (per month) 63.29$ 65.51 94.94$ 98.27$
Set Up Fee 396.00$ 396.00$ 594.00$ 594.00$
Equipment Loss/Damage
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 2.39$ 2.47 3.57$ 3.69
City Parks and Recreation Dept. - Irrigation
Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.19$ 1.23
Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex - Irrigation
Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.62$ 1.68
RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Single Family
Base Charge (per account)38.63$ 39.98 57.94$ 59.97
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.19$ 5.37 7.77$ 8.04
Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. on 1 Meter
Base Charge (per unit)30.59$ 31.66 45.89$ 47.50
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.19$ 5.37 7.77$ 8.04
Multi - Family
Base Charge (per unit)30.59$ 31.66 45.89$ 47.50
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.19$ 5.37 7.77$ 8.04
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Base Charge (per account)23.18$ 23.99 34.76$ 35.98
Commodity Charge (per HCF)3.11$ 3.22 4.66$ 4.82
Commercial I
Base Charge (per account)57.10$ 59.10 85.66$ 88.66
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.34$ 5.53 8.00$ 8.28
Commercial II
Base Charge (per account)57.52$ 59.53 86.28$ 89.30
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 6.84$ 7.08 10.26$ 10.62
Commercial III
Base Charge (per account) 58.09$ 60.12 87.15$ 90.20
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 8.35$ 8.64 12.52$ 12.96
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
6 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES (CONTINUED)
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Commercial IV
Base Charge (per account) 58.66$ 60.71 87.99$ 91.07
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 9.87$ 10.22 14.79$ 15.31
Commercial V
Base Charge (per account) 64.52$ 66.78 96.81$ 100.20
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 12.34$ 12.77 18.50$ 19.15
Commercial VI
Base Charge (per account) 70.97$ 73.45 106.47$ 110.20
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 15.41$ 15.95 23.12$ 23.93
Commercial VII
Base Charge (per account) 78.07$ 80.80 117.11$ 121.21
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 18.00$ 18.63 27.01$ 27.96
Commercial Special
Base Charge (per account) 85.87$ 88.88 128.82$ 133.33
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 24.09$ 24.93 36.09$ 37.35
Beverage Production
Base Charge (per account) 58.09$ 60.12 87.15$ 90.20
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 5.43$ 5.62 8.13$ 8.41
Commercial Fountains - Separately Metered
Base Charge (per account) 57.10$ 59.10 85.66$ 88.66
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 1.76$ 1.82 2.64$ 2.73
Septage Disposal (per gallon of tank capacity) 0.29$ 0.30 0.43$ 0.45
Leachate Per Gallon of Tank Capacity
Individual Residential Grinder Pumps
Grinder Pump Surcharge 12.45$ 12.89 18.68$ 19.33
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Grinder Pump Surcharge 7.47$ 7.73 11.21$ 11.60
RETAIL STORMWATER RATES
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Residential I (Single Family/Duplex)
Base Charge (per account) 21.50$ 23.33 N/A N/A
Exception: Duplex
with 2 Meters (per account) 10.75$ 11.67 N/A N/A
7 of 8
2023
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2024
2024
RETAIL STORMWATER RATES (CONTINUED)
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Residential II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
50% of the Res I Base Charge 10.76$ 11.67 N/A N/A
Residential III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
100% of the Res I Base Charge 21.50$ 23.33 N/A N/A
Commercial I
Base Charge (per IHSU) 21.50$ 23.33 N/A N/A
Commercial II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
50% of the Comm I Base Charge 10.76$ 11.67 N/A N/A
Commercial III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
100% of the Comm I Base Charge 21.50$ 23.33 N/A N/A
Public School Districts (per account) 21.50$ 23.33 N/A N/A
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Base Charge (per account) 12.90$ 14.00 N/A N/A
Multi - Family & Commercial Rate Adjustment
Water Quality (per IHSU) 2.37$ 2.57 N/A N/A
Water Quantity (per IHSU) 7.19$ 7.80 N/A N/A
Stormwater Penalty
New Multi - Family & Commercial
development without on-site detention
Charge (per IHSU) 4.76$ 5.16 N/A N/A
(1) Low-Income defined as Gross Earned Income of $40,000 or less. Low-Income is a 40% discount.
*Pavement Restoration Charge May Also Be Assessed
** Fees include original review and one resubmittal review.
Additional reviews will be charged at miscellaneous hourly rate (above).
*** Does not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot.
**** (Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of a project and billed
after the final site inspection. Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final
8 of 8
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5486 to levy
Property Taxes for Collection in 2024
Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Mike Riley
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Cities over 10,000 in population are allowed to raise their annual property tax collection
by either 1% or the amount of the July Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), whichever is lower. This year,
the IPD was 3.67%.
The City is requesting the full 1% increase to our general property tax and EMS levy over the prior
year’s collection, as allowed by law. This increase, along with the amounts anticipated for new
construction, has been included in the 2024 Proposed Budget.
RCW 84.52.020 requires all taxing districts to “certify to the county legislative authority, for the
purpose of levying district taxes…the amounts to be raised” by property taxes. RCW 84.55.120
requires that the certification includes the enabling tax ordinance setting the property tax rate. These
documents must be submitted to the county by November 30, 2023.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5486 establishing the amount to be collected in 2024 by taxation
on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the
property levy rate.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed 2024 budget anticipates passage
of this ordinance. Budgeted revenue matches the levy amounts as the total collections in recent
years closely approximate the actual amount collected. In the General Fund revenue from the
general property tax levy is $8,981,223 and the EMS levy is $2,299,698. Revenue from voter
approved levies are budgeted in Debt Service funds and include $900,000 for the 2010 Public Safety
bond and $550,000 for the 2015 Public Safety bond.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. 5486 establishing the amount to be collected in 2024 by taxation on the
assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property
levy rate.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
4M
1
2024 Property Tax
ORDINANCE NO. 5486
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in
2024 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property
within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy
rate.
WHEREAS, the City Council attests that the population of the City of Bremerton
for 2023 is 44,640; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has properly given notice of the public hearing held
on November 1, 2023, to consider the City’s revenue sources for the City’s General Fund
budget; and
WHEREAS, the City’s actual levy amount from the previous year, including any
refunds and abatements levied was $8,855,902; and
WHEREAS, the City’s actual EMS levy amount from the previous year,
including any refunds and abatements levied was $2,267,399; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing and duly considering all relevant
evidence and testimony presented, has determined that the City of Bremerton requires a regular
levy and EMS levy in the maximum amounts allowable, which is a 1.0% increase to the highest
lawful levy allowed by law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby
authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2024 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase
over the actual levy from the previous year shall be $31,927 which is an effective percent
increase of 0.36415% from the previous year levy. This increase is exclusive of additional
revenue resulting from new construction, any increase in the value of state assessed property,
and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds
made.
SECTION 2. That an EMS levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be
collected in the 2024 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy from the
previous year shall be $8,402 which is an effective percent increase of 0.3743% from the
highest allowable levy. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new
construction, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts
resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made. This levy is further
subject to the maximum allowable levy rate of $0.37 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
2
2024 Property Tax
SECTION 3. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2010
Public Safety UTGO Refunding Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby
authorized to levy property taxes to be collected in 2024 at a rate sufficient to provide
$900,000 needed to meet debt service obligations in 2024.
SECTION 4. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2015
Public Safety UTGO Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to
levy property taxes to be collected in 2024 at a rate sufficient to provide $550,000 needed to
meet debt service obligations in 2024.
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 ____________________, 2023
_________________________________
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2023
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2023
EFFECTIVE the _________day of ______________________, 2023
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for the
2024 City of Bremerton Budget
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Karen Wikle/Mike Riley
Phone: (360) 473-5296
SUMMARY: Tonight’s public hearing is to take comments on the revenue sources for the 2024
Proposed Budget. The proposed budget anticipates property and EMS levy increases of the full 1%
allowed by law, leaves utility tax rates unchanged. The proposed budget also adjusts for the increase
to the B&O tax exemption rate to $1,040,000 and includes interfund transfers between funds where
appropriate. Overall, the revenue projections throughout all funds remain conservative
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Revenue Sources
The 2024 Proposed Budget may be found on the City’s website at:
www.BremertonWA.gov/2024budget
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
Total proposed general fund revenue, without beginning fund balance, is $52,953,160.
With beginning fund balance, total general fund revenue is $69,749,036.
Total proposed revenue city wide, without beginning fund balance, is $152,595,371.
With beginning fund balance, total revenue city wide is $227,229,747.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Open Hearing for Public Comment.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
6A
BEG LIC.INTER-CHARGES FINES 2023
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL.TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
General Fund
General Government:
City Council 0 0 0 176,032 0 0 176,032
Executive 0 0 0 220,208 0 0 220,208
Financial Services 0 0 0 893,686 0 0 893,686
Legal 0 0 0 742,670 0 0 742,670
Human Resources 0 0 0 353,819 0 0 353,819
Community Development 3,265,000 1,250,750 75,000 679,550 20,000 0 5,290,300
Municipal Court 0 0 100,000 189,260 146,550 10,300 446,110
City Auditor 0 0 0 57,133 0 0 57,133
Law Enforcement 0 3,910 888,151 357,500 1,000 20,000 1,270,561
Fire/Emergency Medical 2,200,000 800 800,554 650,150 0 0 3,651,504
Police & Fire Pension 0 0 100,671 0 0 0 100,671
General Facilities 0 0 0 194,442 0 677,500 871,942
Parks 0 0 0 184,200 0 70,000 254,200
Engineering 0 100,000 0 3,111,501 0 0 3,211,501
Non-Departmental 31,751,715 32,000 1,834,270 257,838 700,000 837,000 35,412,823
Beginning Fund Balance 16,795,876 16,795,876
Total General Fund 16,795,876 37,216,715 1,387,460 3,798,646 8,067,989 867,550 1,614,800 69,749,036
Special Revenue Funds:
Street 387,953 780,000 0 820,000 98,000 0 1,522,000 3,607,953
Contingency Reserve 1,951,802 0 0 0 0 0 160,000 2,111,802
Lodging Tax 823,487 755,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 1,593,487
Parking System 381,892 0 0 0 0 410,500 1,613,358 2,405,750
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 212,000 0 0 500,000 5,000 0 90,500 807,500
Abatement Revolving Fund 444,783 0 0 0 0 50,000 15,000 509,783
Police Special Projects 763,562 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 783,562
Public Access Television 497,991 0 230,000 0 162,521 0 81,500 972,012
Gift & Donations Fund 95,160 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 100,160
Trial Improvement 103,362 0 0 22,000 0 0 3,000 128,362
One Percent for Arts 8,393 0 0 0 0 0 100 8,493
Conference Center Oper 218,267 0 0 0 1,225,588 0 460,000 1,903,855
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 5,888,651 1,535,000 230,000 1,342,000 1,491,109 460,500 3,985,458 14,932,718
Debt Service Fund:
2010 UTGO 94,865 900,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 997,865
Government Center LTGO 87,393 0 0 0 0 0 332,000 419,393
2015 Public Safety Bond 240,853 550,000 0 0 0 0 7,000 797,853
2019 Refunding LTGO 67,717 330,000 0 3,500 0 0 147,000 548,217
Total Debt Service Fund 490,827 1,780,000 0 3,500 0 0 489,000 2,763,327
Capital Improvement Funds:
General Govt Capital Improv. 6,229,098 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 7,979,098
Park Facilities Construction 367,065 0 0 0 0 0 137,000 504,065
Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation Projects Fund 1,551,029 1,850,900 175,000 7,183,963 0 0 1,763,269 12,524,161
Fire Public Safety Capital 6,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,385
Affordable Housing Capital Fund 79,791 0 0 1,100,000 0 0 103,000 1,282,791
Total Capital Improv. Funds 8,233,368 3,350,900 175,000 8,283,963 0 0 2,253,269 22,296,500
Total General Gov't Funds 31,408,722 43,882,615 1,792,460 13,428,109 9,559,098 1,328,050 8,342,527 109,741,581
2024 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
BEG LIC.INTER-CHARGES FINES 2023
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL.TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
2024 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 2,278,981 0 0 0 16,069,040 13,000 606,000 18,967,021
Water Capital 10,740,300 0 0 0 0 0 5,222,561 15,962,861
Wastewater Utility 2,459,405 0 0 0 18,650,500 15,000 27,000 21,151,905
Wastewater Capital 12,109,408 0 0 127,933 0 0 8,643,856 20,881,197
Stormwater Utility 805,303 0 0 40,000 6,248,500 6,000 81,000 7,180,803
Stormwater Capital 6,174,189 0 0 550,000 0 0 1,310,000 8,034,189
Utility Debt Reserve 1,712,238 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,712,238
Gold Mountain Golf Complex 2,576,072 0 0 0 6,351,792 0 66,000 8,993,864
Total Enterprise Funds 38,855,896 0 0 717,933 47,319,832 34,000 15,956,417 102,884,078
Internal Service Funds:
Risk Management 582,915 0 0 0 0 0 3,864,844 4,447,759
Employment Security 317,717 0 0 0 0 0 41,000 358,717
Accumulated Leave Liability 1,185,949 0 0 0 0 0 382,000 1,567,949
ER&R Operations & Maint. (47,795)0 0 0 2,297,107 0 1,950 2,251,262
ER&R Equipment Reserve 1,819,298 0 0 0 0 0 1,456,308 3,275,606
Information Services 511,673 0 0 0 2,155,821 0 35,300 2,702,794
Total Internal Service Funds 4,369,757 0 0 0 4,452,928 0 5,781,402 14,604,087
Total Business Type Funds 43,225,654 0 0 717,933 51,772,760 34,000 21,737,819 117,488,165
Total All Funds 74,634,376 43,882,615 1,792,460 14,146,042 61,331,858 1,362,050 30,080,346 227,229,747
Beginning Fund
Balance
$74,634,376
33%
Taxes
$43,882,615
19%
Licenses & Permits
$1,792,460
1%
Intergovernmental
$14,146,042
6%
Charges for Service
$61,331,858
27%
Fines & Forfeits
$1,362,050
1%Other Revenue
$30,080,346
13%
Revenue Sources - All Funds
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing (1st of 2) on the
Proposed 2024 City of Bremerton Budget
To receive public comment only; No action to
be taken by the Council until November 15…
Study Session Date: Budget Workshops
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: Financial Services
Presenters: Karen Wikle
Phone: (360) 473-5296
SUMMARY: Tonight’s public hearing is held to take comments on the 2024 Proposed Budget.
Budget workshops were held on October 23 and October 26 where an overview of the Mayor’s
proposed budget was presented to Council. Public comments will be taken into consideration before
Council adopts a final ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
The 2024 Proposed Budget and related workshop presentations may be found on the City’s website
at 2024 Proposed Annual Budget | Bremerton, WA - Official Website (bremertonwa.gov)
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Total proposed general fund expenditures, without ending fund balance, is $59,517,442. With ending
fund balance, total general fund expenditures are $69,749,036. Total proposed expenditures city
wide, without ending fund balance, is $175,764,848. With ending fund balance, total expenditures
city wide is $227,229,747.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ No Presentation ☐ Full Presentation - Budget Workshops
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Open Hearing for Public Comment.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/07/15
6B
BEG LIC.INTER-CHARGES FINES 2024
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL.TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
General Fund
General Government:
City Council 0 0 0 176,032 0 0 176,032
Executive 0 0 0 220,208 0 0 220,208
Financial Services 0 0 0 893,686 0 0 893,686
Legal 0 0 0 742,670 0 0 742,670
Human Resources 0 0 0 353,819 0 0 353,819
Community Development 3,265,000 1,250,750 75,000 679,550 20,000 0 5,290,300
Municipal Court 0 0 100,000 189,260 146,550 10,300 446,110
City Auditor 0 0 0 57,133 0 0 57,133
Law Enforcement 0 3,910 888,151 357,500 1,000 20,000 1,270,561
Fire/Emergency Medical 2,200,000 800 800,554 650,150 0 0 3,651,504
Police & Fire Pension 0 0 100,671 0 0 0 100,671
General Facilities 0 0 0 194,442 0 677,500 871,942
Parks 0 0 0 184,200 0 70,000 254,200
Engineering 0 100,000 0 3,111,501 0 0 3,211,501
Non-Departmental 31,751,715 32,000 1,834,270 257,838 700,000 837,000 35,412,823
Beginning Fund Balance 16,795,876 16,795,876
Total General Fund 16,795,876 37,216,715 1,387,460 3,798,646 8,067,989 867,550 1,614,800 69,749,036
Special Revenue Funds:
Street 387,953 780,000 0 820,000 98,000 0 1,522,000 3,607,953
Contingency Reserve 1,951,802 0 0 0 0 0 160,000 2,111,802
Lodging Tax 823,487 755,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 1,593,487
Parking System 381,892 0 0 0 0 410,500 1,613,358 2,405,750
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 212,000 0 0 500,000 5,000 0 90,500 807,500
Abatement Revolving Fund 444,783 0 0 0 0 50,000 15,000 509,783
Police Special Projects 763,562 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 783,562
Public Access Television 497,991 0 230,000 0 162,521 0 81,500 972,012
Gift & Donations Fund 95,160 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 100,160
Trial Improvement 103,362 0 0 22,000 0 0 3,000 128,362
One Percent for Arts 8,393 0 0 0 0 0 100 8,493
Conference Center Oper 218,267 0 0 0 1,225,588 0 460,000 1,903,855
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 5,888,651 1,535,000 230,000 1,342,000 1,491,109 460,500 3,985,458 14,932,718
Debt Service Fund:
2010 UTGO 94,865 900,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 997,865
Government Center LTGO 87,393 0 0 0 0 0 332,000 419,393
2015 Public Safety Bond 240,853 550,000 0 0 0 0 7,000 797,853
2019 Refunding LTGO 67,717 330,000 0 3,500 0 0 147,000 548,217
Total Debt Service Fund 490,827 1,780,000 0 3,500 0 0 489,000 2,763,327
Capital Improvement Funds:
General Govt Capital Improv. 6,229,098 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 7,979,098
Park Facilities Construction 367,065 0 0 0 0 0 137,000 504,065
Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation Projects Fund 1,551,029 1,850,900 175,000 7,183,963 0 0 1,763,269 12,524,161
Fire Public Safety Capital 6,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,385
Affordable Housing Capital Fund 79,791 0 0 1,100,000 0 0 103,000 1,282,791
Total Capital Improv. Funds 8,233,368 3,350,900 175,000 8,283,963 0 0 2,253,269 22,296,500
Total General Gov't Funds 31,408,722 43,882,615 1,792,460 13,428,109 9,559,098 1,328,050 8,342,527 109,741,581
2024 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
BEG LIC.INTER-CHARGES FINES 2024
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL.TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
2024 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 2,278,981 0 0 0 16,069,040 13,000 606,000 18,967,021
Water Capital 10,740,300 0 0 0 0 0 5,222,561 15,962,861
Wastewater Utility 2,459,405 0 0 0 18,650,500 15,000 27,000 21,151,905
Wastewater Capital 12,109,408 0 0 127,933 0 0 8,643,856 20,881,197
Stormwater Utility 805,303 0 0 40,000 6,248,500 6,000 81,000 7,180,803
Stormwater Capital 6,174,189 0 0 550,000 0 0 1,310,000 8,034,189
Utility Debt Reserve 1,712,238 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,712,238
Gold Mountain Golf Complex 2,576,072 0 0 0 6,351,792 0 66,000 8,993,864
Total Enterprise Funds 38,855,896 0 0 717,933 47,319,832 34,000 15,956,417 102,884,078
Internal Service Funds:
Risk Management 582,915 0 0 0 0 0 3,864,844 4,447,759
Employment Security 317,717 0 0 0 0 0 41,000 358,717
Accumulated Leave Liability 1,185,949 0 0 0 0 0 382,000 1,567,949
ER&R Operations & Maint. (47,795)0 0 0 2,297,107 0 1,950 2,251,262
ER&R Equipment Reserve 1,819,298 0 0 0 0 0 1,456,308 3,275,606
Information Services 511,673 0 0 0 2,155,821 0 35,300 2,702,794
Total Internal Service Funds 4,369,757 0 0 0 4,452,928 0 5,781,402 14,604,087
Total Business Type Funds 43,225,654 0 0 717,933 51,772,760 34,000 21,737,819 117,488,165
Total All Funds 74,634,376 43,882,615 1,792,460 14,146,042 61,331,858 1,362,050 30,080,346 227,229,747
Beginning Fund
Balance
$74,634,376
33%
Taxes
$43,882,615
19%
Licenses & Permits
$1,792,460
1%
Intergovernmental
$14,146,042
6%
Charges for Service
$61,331,858
27%
Fines & Forfeits
$1,362,050
1%Other Revenue
$30,080,346
13%
Revenue Sources - All Funds
1/0/1900
2024
SUPPLIES &DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL
FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL.BUDGET
General Fund
General Government:
City Council 396,492 44,967 0 0 0 441,459
Executive 474,226 78,020 0 0 0 552,246
Financial Services 1,385,371 351,475 0 0 0 1,736,846
Legal Department 1,671,654 298,572 0 0 0 1,970,226
Human Resources 562,124 325,197 0 0 0 887,321
Community Development 2,231,243 966,673 0 0 80,000 3,277,916
Municipal Court 1,302,505 644,150 0 0 0 1,946,655
City Auditor 136,649 6,630 0 0 0 143,279
Law Enforcement 12,350,974 2,515,501 0 0 0 14,866,475
Fire/Emergency Medical 12,830,007 1,598,079 0 0 0 14,428,086
Police & Fire Pension 1,205,400 477,700 0 0 0 1,683,100
General Facilities 558,757 1,579,322 0 120,000 0 2,258,079
General Parks 2,575,881 891,741 0 0 0 3,467,622
Engineering 3,821,039 443,181 0 0 0 4,264,220
Non-Departmental 744,500 5,316,411 0 0 1,533,000 7,593,911
Ending Fund Balance 10,231,595 10,231,595
Total General Fund 42,246,822 15,537,620 0 120,000 1,613,000 10,231,595 69,749,036
Special Revenue Funds:
Street 1,571,042 1,842,132 0 0 0 194,779 3,607,953
Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 2,111,802 2,111,802
Lodging Tax 0 505,000 0 0 250,000 838,487 1,593,487
Parking System 0 1,336,141 577,033 20,000 70,000 402,576 2,405,750
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 144,717 119,181 0 0 273,000 270,602 807,500
Abatement Revolving Fund 0 355,100 0 0 0 154,683 509,783
Police Special Projects 0 256,596 0 0 0 526,966 783,562
Public Access Television 471,382 78,466 0 77,000 0 345,164 972,012
Gift & Donations Fund 0 2,500 0 0 0 97,660 100,160
Trial Improvement 0 37,000 0 0 0 91,362 128,362
One Percent for Arts 0 8,000 0 0 0 493 8,493
Conference Center Oper 0 1,745,988 28,050 80,000 0 49,817 1,903,855
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 2,187,141 6,286,103 605,083 177,000 593,000 5,084,391 14,932,718
Debt Service Fund:
2010 UTGO 0 0 855,625 0 0 142,240 997,865
Government Center LTGO 0 0 330,863 0 0 88,530 419,393
2015 Public Safety Bond 0 0 502,800 0 0 295,053 797,853
2019 Refunding LTGO 0 0 533,834 0 0 14,383 548,217
Total Debt Service Fund 0 0 2,223,122 0 0 540,206 2,763,327
Capital Improvement Funds:
General Govt Capital Improv.0 0 0 0 2,611,269 5,367,829 7,979,098
Park Facilities Construction 0 0 0 0 0 504,065 504,065
Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation Projects Fund 0 1,370,000 0 9,854,093 495,000 805,068 12,524,161
Fire Public Safety Capital 0 0 0 0 0 6,385 6,385
Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 82,791 1,282,791
Total Capital Improv. Funds 0 2,570,000 0 9,854,093 3,106,269 6,766,138 22,296,500
Total General Gov't Funds 44,433,963 24,393,723 2,828,204 10,151,093 5,312,269 22,622,329 109,741,581
2024 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
1/0/1900
2024
SUPPLIES &DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL
FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL.BUDGET
2024 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 5,180,452 8,762,165 727,228 0 2,600,000 1,697,175 18,967,021
Water Capital 0 2,048,000 0 7,679,186 0 6,235,675 15,962,861
Wastewater Utility 4,070,865 10,365,153 1,758,025 0 3,175,000 1,782,862 21,151,905
Wastewater Capital 0 1,250,000 0 10,937,672 60,000 8,633,525 20,881,197
Stormwater Utility 1,931,207 3,377,642 730,513 0 475,000 666,441 7,180,803
Stormwater Capital 0 275,000 0 6,102,000 0 1,657,189 8,034,189
Utility Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 1,712,238 1,712,238
Gold Mountain Golf Complex 11,516 5,570,921 432,915 0 0 2,978,512 8,993,864
Total Enterprise Funds 11,194,040 31,648,881 3,648,681 24,718,858 6,310,000 25,363,618 102,884,078
Internal Service Funds:
Risk Management 625,000 3,514,638 0 0 0 308,121 4,447,759
Employment Security 40,000 0 0 0 0 318,717 358,717
Accumulated Leave Liability 500,000 0 0 0 0 1,067,949 1,567,949
ER&R Operations & Maint 636,097 1,575,893 0 35,000 0 4,272 2,251,262
ER&R Equipment Reserves 0 10,496 0 1,515,000 0 1,750,110 3,275,606
Information Services 1,261,612 1,411,400 0 0 0 29,782 2,702,794
Total Internal Service Funds 3,062,709 6,512,427 0 1,550,000 0 3,478,951 14,604,087
Total Business Type Funds 14,256,749 38,161,308 3,648,681 26,268,858 6,310,000 28,842,569 117,488,165
Total All Funds 58,690,712 62,555,031 6,476,885 36,419,951 11,622,269 51,464,898 227,229,747
Personnel
$58,690,712
26%
Supplies & Services
$62,555,031
27%
Debt Service
$6,476,885
3%
Capital Outlay
$36,419,951
16%
Transfers
$11,622,269
5%
Ending Fund
Balance
$51,464,898
23%
Expenditures - All Funds
Published for
November 1
Council Meeting
ITEM 6B – Public Comments
From: Jim McDonald <jimmc90@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 5:42 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Mike Riley <Mike.Riley@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: 2024 Proposed Budget
Dear Council Members,
I was pleased to see that one of your strategic priorities and
initiatives: "City properties will be well
maintained...". Unfortunately, the proposed 2024 budget does
nothing to support this priority/initiative.
As the Parks Commission has already told you, the City's park
system is grossly underfunded. While the Council added a third
FTE to the Mayor's budget last year and is proposed to continue
into next year, I wish you would explore the value of that
position. It seems like the Council had to hire a contractor to
do what that position was supposed to do.
Would it be possible to reduce that position to 1/2 FTE and
increase the Parks manpower by the equivalent amount? The
Parks Department probably needs at least 5 or 6 full time
employees to meet your stated priorities.
I also saw that the Mayor is proposing $2.2 million to develop
help for the homeless. While I support this goal, could not it be
done with less and $200,000 allocated to the Parks
Budget? The Conference Center trees are all dying and need to
be replaced. The City doesn't have a dedicated tree
replacement fund. So when trees die or are destroyed by
vehicles, they often do not get replaced. Please consider
increasing the Parks Department material budget.
Finally, I was so pleased with your action last year to up the
B&O exemption and your 2024 budget proposed to increase it
another $20,000. As I repeatedly tell you, the B&O tax is the
worst tax of all. It applies to businesses' gross income. So even
if the business is losing money, they still have to pay this
tax. And neither Kitsap County, Port Orchard, or Poulsbo has
this tax. Why do you think Lowes moved outside the
City? Why don't we have big sales tax generating businesses
like Costco or Fred Meyer? Those companies do economic
analysis and taxes are part of that analysis. They can make
more money outside the City limits than inside. It is as simple
as that.
Remember, this is your budget. You can change it anyway you
like! And thanks again for your service to the City.
R, Jim McDonald
From: Kelsey S <kelsey.e.stedman@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 10:39 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Clerk <City.Clerk@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: 2024 City of Bremerton Budget Comments
Hello Bremerton City Council,
In review of the proposed 2024 budget, I would like to provide the following feedback:
1. There was an unmet 2023 goal to explore creation of a City Health and Human Services Coordinator
position. Not only was this goal not accomplished for 2023, but despite multiple public comments and
support for such a position from local agencies such as Kitsap County Human Services, including HEART,
KPHD, BPD, etc, there is no goal or funding for a City Human Services Position in the 2024 budget. The
Mayor cannot be expected to be able to oversee all the work needed to address homelessness in
Bremerton, evidenced by the many examples of misinformation shared during meetings about the
services in the city and County. Bremerton needs their own Human Services division.
2. I appreciate the funding for the shelter, Stand By Me, and the BH navigators, and the mobile crisis
response units (REAL team). However, we have repeatedly heard the need for consistent, field-based,
case management service providers to meet people where they are at, and be the "hub" in a hub and
spoke model to refer to the supported programs, such as Stand By Me and REAL teams.
FACTS:
1. Stand By Me is a very needed service, but it is not Kitsap Connect, and needs to stop being
compared to it. I was the Program Coordinator for Kitsap Connect. Kitsap Connect was a multi-
agency program that performed street outreach, home visits, jail visits, and intensive, wrap-
around case management. Stand by Me is not able to provide intensive case management. They
are not able to perform any street outreach off Salvation Army property AKA they are
not allowed to outreach on MLK/Broadway, or 8th St. They cannot support individuals banned
from Salvation Army. They cannot outreach to individuals in encampments, or provide services
offsite of Salvation Army property. They cannot support people experiencing unsheltered
homelessness unless these individuals come to Salvation Army for support or a PCHS location
(including mobile unit sites). THIS LEAVES MANY GAPS. WE NEED FIELD-BASED CASE
MANAGEMENT AND OUTREACH that can then connect folks into services such as Stand By Me
for care coordination. There is local, state, and international evidence to support this
approach.
2. BH Navigators do fantastic work, but they do not carry a caseload. Their ability to follow-up with
individuals after initial referrals to services is limited because they must remain available to
respond to BPD requests for in-the-moment for support. THIS LEAVES PEOPLE TO FALL
THROUGH THE CRACKS AFTER INITIAL REFERRAL.
3. The REAL teams provide invaluable linkage to services for substance use disorder. However, the
mobile response units (REAL teams) cannot perform outreach unless requested by a community
advocate, BPD, or EMS. They cannot perform blanket outreach, it is not allowed through their
grant funding. They can only respond to a specific request for a specific individual. They can only
support that individual if they sign on for services, and are challenged to coordinate care across
agencies due to strict confidentiality criteria and need for ROIs to even confirm if they are
helping any given individual. THIS LEAVES NO ONE TO COORDINATE CARE ACROSS
AGENCIES/NEEDS, nor PERFORM OUTREACH TO ENGAGE PEOPLE INTO THESE PROGRAMS.
THEY ARE NOT A CRISIS SERVICE.
4. The City Shelter will not be operational until mid-late 2024, at the earliest this does not address
the need for additional shelter now or for possible gaps between closure of Salvation Army
and opening of the new shelter.
3. Despite repeated public comment from constituents, agencies, and City Council, there is no funding
included for agencies such as Rock the Block to provide the case management and linkage to care
services needed to those experiencing homelessness. RTB requests for meetings with the mayor to
discuss this have resulted in either no response, or referral to the REAL teams and/or HEART, even from
Bremerton constituents who have a right to a meeting with their elected official. HEART IS IN THE CITY
BECAUSE OF RTB's ADVOCACY FOR THIS. WE INITIATE THE REFERRALS to REAL TEAM and HEART.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, City Council, do not accept a budget that has no funding for the operations that
can help people actually exit homelessness, permanently.
Finally, RTB has initiated a local Call to Action to declare homelessness an emergency, with guidelines
similar to those utilized by the City during COVID, and funding opportunities for agencies such as Rock
the Block. In the 18 hours since we've gone live, we are quickly approaching 100 signatures, with the
majority in Bremerton City Limits. We will continue to provide you updates, but here is a snapshot of the
results so far:
I have seen some great comments come from City Council, and I hope you continue to show, through
your actions, that the above mentioned issues need to be addressed before you can vote YES on the
2024 budget.
Best,
Kelsey Stedman, RN
Rock the Block Volunteer
From: Kelsey Stedman <kelsey.e.stedman@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council
<City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Clerk <City.Clerk@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public comment for 11.01 Council Meetinf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Wheeler and City Council,
Please find an attached Call to Action supported by nearly 200 people in less than 4 days as you
deliberate on the 2024 Budget and your response to homelessness within the city. See you tonight!
Best,
Kelsey Stedman, RN, MSN, CWCN
360.908.6751
November 1,2023
Mayor Greg Wheeler
City of Bremerton,Office of the Mayor
345 6th St.Bremerton,WA 98337
Council President Jeff Coughlin
Bremerton City Council
City of Bremerton,Suite 600
345 6th St.Bremerton,WA 98337
RE:Call to Action -Recognize Homelessness as an Emergency
We,the undersigned community members,urge Mayor Wheeler to equitably provide meaningful
engagement and outreach to our unhoused community leading up to the opening of the Salvation Army
overnight shelter on November 1 and beyond.To do this,we call on the Mayor to convene a
coordinated outreach group,and budget for options to sustainably fund case management services,such
as Rock the Block (RTB,)in order to be fairly resourced by the City of Bremerton and effectively address
the time-sensitive needs of unhoused individuals in downtown Bremerton.Connecting any individual
interested and able to exit homelessness is an urgent priority.
Recently,a fact sheet was distributed to unhoused neighbors describing the details of the unauthorized
camping ordinance,failing to include accurate information on how to access available resources,such as
the Salvation Army winter shelter opening Nov.1.This sheet did not inform individuals in the face of
limited shelter options and inclement weather in an equitable way.This form of “engagement”is not
conducive to promoting health and wellbeing of our community,nor effectively provides links to basic
human needs,so that individuals have connections to address their higher needs such as healthcare,
mental health,or recovery services.
Even though recommended by City Council,RTB has been unsuccessful in their requests to get a
meeting with the Mayor,even as voting Bremerton constituents,or be considered as an essential
contracted community partner who can respond to ongoing needs daily.This is a missed opportunity.We
stand with RTB and believe their unique outreach efforts are fundamental to turning the curve on the
increasing trend of homelessness in our community as cost of living rises.
RTB volunteers have provided consistent engagement,supplies and services to over 90 individuals in just
over 90 days.In addition,30 individuals successfully entered inpatient drug detox,treatment and/or
housing placements in that same time frame through collaborative efforts of RTB volunteers and local
agencies.Twenty-five (25)of those individuals (83%)have not returned to homelessness in downtown
Bremerton.This is the progress we wish to see continue in our community.These volunteered efforts
must be honored,compensated,and sustained by the City of Bremerton in a coordinated fashion.Any
decision that hinders equitable access to care and services should not be acceptable to any of us.
1
To do this in a timely manner,we call on the Mayor to respond by declaring a state of emergency in the
City of Bremerton to confront the homelessness crisis by December 1,2023.An emergency declaration,
with provisions similar to those implemented by the city for COVID response,would provide the city the
ability to more rapidly adapt policy,allocate funding,and bolster collective impact to meaningfully
address homelessness in our community for the long term.The opening of the Salvation Army overnight
shelter on November 1 will not address all immediate needs,and many individuals using the shelter
services could also benefit from continued intensive outreach while in shelter to end their homelessness.
We recommend the following actions be taken under this declaration:
●Contract:provide funding requests to contract with service providers such as RTB to continue
evidence-based,intensive case management,intensive meaningful outreach,and care
coordination to support those experiencing homelessness to enter into stable living situations,
expedited through an Emergency Declaration.
●Connect:prioritize meaningful community engagement,consistent,dependable connection -
recognizing social connection is a key component to exiting homelessness,stopping substance
use,and more.
●Collaborate:strengthen opportunities to advance community-led decision making to advance
health equity and address factors that lead to homelessness at the individual,organizational,
community,and systemic level.
This approach is critical to meeting the needs of unsheltered community members.As stated by
community members:
●“I’m homeless please help me find a home”-Lisa Lewis,District 3
●“The city must share in responsibility for resolving the homelessness crisis in Bremerton.The
county is already doing their part.The inaction and lack of funding for resources has escalated
the crisis unnecessarily.”-Christi Lyson,District 3
●“Mayor Wheeler,I used to be your neighbor on High Ave.Please help us with affordable housing.
Thank you.”-Chris Ormbrek,District 3
●“Please help me with a home.I don’t want to be homeless.”-Shellee Easley,District 3
●“Homelessness has become an epidemic in our city,it absolutely pains me to see virtually
nothing being done by the city to help these individuals….what are you doing about this,
Mayor?How are you,as the Mayor of our city,helping these individuals and families?”-Alexa
Kempf,District 6
●“Everyone deserves a safe place to lay their head!”-Jolinda Eckard,District 7
●“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;defend the rights of the poor and needy (Proverbs 31:8-9 niv).”-Jillian
Turnbull,District 7
●“Let’s get people off the street voluntarily.”-Joslyn LaMadrid,District 2
●“Please stop turning a blind eye to the problem.It's NOT going to correct itself.Our city leaders
were elected to listen to ALL its citizens and too many are saying HELP ME.it's time we stop
2
giving breaks and support to big builders and give that support to our unhoused neighbors.”
-Wendie Pond,District 3
●“They are human too.”Jenelle Santos,District 4
●“The number of tents in my immediate neighborhood grows larger every day.And it gets colder
every night.”-Alison Loris,District 4“Please support RTB in getting these people off the streets”-
Christy Linkemeyer,District 4
●“To save a life is a real and beautiful thing.To make a home for the homeless,yes,it is a thing
that must be good;whatever the world may say,it cannot be wrong.—Vincent Van Gogh”-Jeff
Sanders,District 6
●“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;defend the rights of the poor and needy.Proverbs 31:8-9 niv”-Jillian
Turnbull,District 7
Sincerely,the undersigned (184 signatures between October 29 (4pm)-November 1,2023 (3pm)):
1 April Borik District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
2 Bri H District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
3 Carmelita M Manglona District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
4 Daniel Gardner District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
5 Dawn Michele Wilson District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
6 Jay elliott District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
7 John Fontana District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
8 Kimmy Siebens RN District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
9 Michelle Fleetwood District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
10 Phillip Fontana District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
3
11 Rebecca Gale District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
12 Sherly Pantouw Jones District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
13 Sheryl Piercy District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
14 Theressa Schroeder District 1:Jennifer Chamberlin
15 Chelan Hoffman District 2:Denise Frey
16 Debra Kindt District 2:Denise Frey
17 Joslyn lamadrid District 2:Denise Frey
18 Kasidey Lewis District 2:Denise Frey
19 Natassja Shaffer District 2:Denise Frey
20 Adam Simmons District 3:Jeff Coughlin
21 Alexander Kemp District 3:Jeff Coughlin
22 Antone Groves District 3:Jeff Coughlin
23 Bernard Lee District 3:Jeff Coughlin
24 Brent Smith District 3:Jeff Coughlin
25 Brian Schweitzer District 3:Jeff Coughlin
26 Bruce Nichols District 3:Jeff Coughlin
27 Chris Ormbrek District 3:Jeff Coughlin
28 Christi Lyson District 3:Jeff Coughlin
29
Christopher Lee
Kaneakalau District 3:Jeff Coughlin
30 Cybelle Burns District 3:Jeff Coughlin
31 Daniel Crawford District 3:Jeff Coughlin
32 Emily Anderson-Hobbs District 3:Jeff Coughlin
33 Jackie Baird District 3:Jeff Coughlin
34 James Covey District 3:Jeff Coughlin
35 James Ramsay District 3:Jeff Coughlin
36 Jason Tronson District 3:Jeff Coughlin
37 Jay Beer District 3:Jeff Coughlin
38 Jeff Allen District 3:Jeff Coughlin
39 Jeremy Schmitt District 3:Jeff Coughlin
40 Jessica hutnh District 3:Jeff Coughlin
41 John Hampton District 3:Jeff Coughlin
42 Katie Allen District 3:Jeff Coughlin
43 Kristen Booth District 3:Jeff Coughlin
44 Laura Westervelt District 3:Jeff Coughlin
45 Lauren Carstens District 3:Jeff Coughlin
46 Lisa Lewis District 3:Jeff Coughlin
4
47 Mark Engdahl District 3:Jeff Coughlin
48 Morgan Davis District 3:Jeff Coughlin
49 Nathan Anderson-Hobbs District 3:Jeff Coughlin
50 Patricia Hennessy District 3:Jeff Coughlin
51 Ralph Soper District 3:Jeff Coughlin
52 Ranae Beeker District 3:Jeff Coughlin
53 Rian-Mcnair District 3:Jeff Coughlin
54 Ricky Sanders District 3:Jeff Coughlin
55 Ronald Roe District 3:Jeff Coughlin
56 Scott Duhon District 3:Jeff Coughlin
57 Shane Dutterer District 3:Jeff Coughlin
58 Sharpie Knutson District 3:Jeff Coughlin
59 Shawn Habener District 3:Jeff Coughlin
60 Shawna Freitas District 3:Jeff Coughlin
61 Shellee Easley District 3:Jeff Coughlin
62 Stacie Sharp District 3:Jeff Coughlin
63 Tena Turner District 3:Jeff Coughlin
64 Wendie Pond District 3:Jeff Coughlin
65 William Robinson District 3:Jeff Coughlin
66 Zachariah Anderson District 3:Jeff Coughlin
67 Alison S Loris District 4:Quinn Dennehy
68 Amanda Rodgers District 4:Quinn Dennehy
69 Derrick Atkins District 4:Quinn Dennehy
70 Jenelle Santos District 4:Quinn Dennehy
71 Marwan Cameron District 4:Quinn Dennehy
72 Mike Lozelle District 4:Quinn Dennehy
73 Ray Calvert District 4:Quinn Dennehy
74 Victor Vaona District 4:Quinn Dennehy
103 Christy Linkemeyer District 4:Quinn Dennehy
104 Joseph procell District 4:Quinn Dennehy
75 Amanda Trent District 5:Michael Goodnow
76 Annabelle Massie District 5:Michael Goodnow
77 Jen Martinez District 5:Michael Goodnow
78 Linda Dyer District 5:Michael Goodnow
79 Linette Morawczynski District 5:Michael Goodnow
80 Neal Foley District 5:Michael Goodnow
81 Rosanne Boone District 5:Michael Goodnow
5
82 Alexa Kempf District 6:Anna Mockler
83 Cindy Hjelmaa District 6:Anna Mockler
84 Frank Allen District 6:Anna Mockler
85 Jeff Sanders District 6:Anna Mockler
86 John Sitton District 6:Anna Mockler
87 Katrina Acacio District 6:Anna Mockler
88 Lisa Ragsdale District 6:Anna Mockler
89 Lucy Hoskins District 6:Anna Mockler
90 Mark White District 6:Anna Mockler
91 Sheila Sutton District 6:Anna Mockler
92 Tim Shriner District 6:Anna Mockler
93 Victoria Hilt District 6:Anna Mockler
102 Ariana Miller District 6:Anna Mockler
94 Ashleigh Vandersluys District 7:Eric Younger
95 Deborah Loong District 7:Eric Younger
96 Jake Garland District 7:Eric Younger
97 Jillian Turnbull District 7:Eric Younger
98 Jolinda Eckard District 7:Eric Younger
99 Kenzie Wagner District 7:Eric Younger
100 Paul Roane District 7:Eric Younger
101 Roy McCuaig District 7:Eric Younger
105 Adalinda Lundt I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
106 Alex Jacobson I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
107 Alix Black I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
108 Amanda Sitton I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
109 Ana Cuprill I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
110 Angie Berger I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
111 Annika Turner I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
112 Anton Preisinger I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
113 Barry Myers I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
114 Belinda Grzybowski I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
115 Ben Clark I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
116 Bethany Combs I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
117 Betty Myers I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
118 Brooke Erickson I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
119 Charis Iro s I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
120 Chris Vernon-Cole I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
6
121 Christina Mayfield I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
122 Chrysztyna Rowek I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
123 Chuck Svac I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
124 Cindy Kleinfelter I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
125 Cory Anderson I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
126 Courtney mosby I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
127 Daniel Juarez I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
128 Elissa Matos I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
129 Ellaina Vezina I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
130 Evelyn M.F.Hemming I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
131 Fawn Wagnet I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
132 Grayson Boyzo I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
133 Heather Wood I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
134 Holly Cruz I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
135 Janet King I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
136 Jayme Stuntz I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
137 Jill Armstrong I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
138 John S Sitton I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
139 Juliana Guyt I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
140 Kaci Campbell I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
141 Kaela Moontree I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
142 Karla Crowell I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
143 Kim Campbell I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
144 Kim Risher I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
145 Kristen Halley I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
146 Kylee McWilliams I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
147 Kylie Bell I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
148 LC Jones I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
149 Lindsay McWhorter I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
150 Maggie Brassil I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
151 Mandy Thompson I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
152 Mike Fairchild I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
153 Neda Maghsadi I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
154 Nicholas Mayfield I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
155 Nicole Anderson I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
156 Nicole Cotton I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
157 Pamela Turner I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
7
158 Patricia Eckton I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
159 Rachel Whitman I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
160 Raelenea Copus I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
161 Randie Lee I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
162 Rebecca Scott I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
163 Rosemarie Ide I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
164 Sabrina Juarez I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
165 Sarah Clark I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
166 Sasha Abdon I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
167 Shawn C I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
168 Shawna Dudley-Pry I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
169 Steve Taylor I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
170 Susan A.Vargas I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
171 Talia Soifer I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
172 Talia Speer I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
173 Tobbi Stewart I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
174 Vandana Navroop I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
175 Xiomara Montenegro I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
176 Yvette Stewart I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
177 Adrienne Hampton I live Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
178 Kelsey Stedman I live Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
179 Pam Cone I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
180 Angela Cox I live in Kitsap County,but outside Bremerton City Limits
181 Jarrod Moran I live outside of Kitsap County
182 Summer Hill I live outside of Kitsap County
183 Vanessa Franson I live outside of Kitsap County
184 Katherine lurbiecki I live outside of Kitsap County
8
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3368
to approve Community Development Block
Grant/HOME Funding Recommendations for
inclusion in the 2024 CDBG/HOME Action
Plan
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1, 2023
Department: DCD-CDBG
Presenter: Sarah Lynam
Phone: (360) 473-5375
SUMMARY: On June 21, 2023 City Council approved the 2024 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan outlining the
CDBG and HOME funding allocation process. Based on that policy, the Project Review Committee
(PRC) has developed the 2024 funding recommendations for Council consideration and approval. If
approved, these submissions will be sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in the City’s Annual Action Plan.
The following projects are recommended for CDBG funding: City of Bremerton Public Works
Department Pedestrian Priority Network improvements, Kitsap Community Resources Weatherization
and Minor Home Repair, and the Kitsap Community Resources BE$T program.
The following project is recommended for HOME funding: Bremerton Housing Authority – Evergreen
Bright Start Property
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 3368 with Exhibits
Exhibit A: 2024 Action Plan PRC recommendation for 2024 CDBG funding.
Exhibit B: Grant Recommendation Committee HOME Recommendations for Funding.
Exhibit C: CDBG Project Descriptions
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. Block Grant is a pass-through funding from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Federal Department of Treasury.
Form Updated 01/02/2018
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. 3368 approving the 2024 funding recommendations to be included in
the 2024 Action Plan to HUD and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agency grant
agreements with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
6C
1
RESOLUTION NO. 3368
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving the 2024 CDBG/HOME
Funding Recommendations for inclusion in the 2024 CDBG/HOME
Action Plan.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is an entitlement community which receives a
Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) each year from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”), and also receives funding from HUD’s Home Investment
Partnerships (“HOME”) program through its participation in the Kitsap County HOME
Consortium; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a mandatory Policy Plan for
the City’s management of its HUD entitlement, including a citizen participation plan, application
and review processes, eligibility, and implementation requirements for grant funded projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton conducts a competitive annual process based
on the Policy Plan to determine allocation of CDBG and HOME entitlement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton’s 2024 Policy Plan citizen participation plan
establishes a Project Review Committee to assist the Department of Community Development in
reviewing CDBG and HOME applications by interviewing applicants and recommending annual
project allocation decisions to the Bremerton City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton participates in a Coordinated Application
process with Kitsap County Block Grant Program and Kitsap County Housing and Homelessness
Program for HOME and Homeless Housing Grant Programs, and had its own competitive CDBG
RFP process which received four (4) capital applications, one (1) microenterprise application,
and two (2) job training application, and all were forwarded to the Project Review Committee;
and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Project Review Committee has reviewed, interviewed
and discussed each of the eligible funding requests and formulated funding recommendations
and a funding contingency plan based on their review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Block Grant staff on Friday, September 15th,
2023, posted the recommendations to the City of Bremerton’s website and advertised in the
Kitsap Sun a 30-day written public comment period commencing September 15th and
concluding October 16th, 2023; and
2
WHEREAS, no public comments were received during the public comment
period; and
WHEREAS, legal ads were placed in the Kitsap Sun on September 15th and
October 20th 2023 advertising the City of Bremerton Public Hearing adopting the funding
recommendations on November 1st 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG/HOME staff
presents the Project Review Committee’s recommendations to the City Council for adoption;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution are
hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The 2024 CDBG/HOME Funding Recommendations attached
hereto as Exhibits A and B and described in Exhibit C, will be incorporated into the 2024
Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences
of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____
day of __________________, 2023.
_________________________________
JEFFERY COUGHLIN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ ________________________________
KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
2024 City of Bremerton Project Review Committee Recommendations for Funding
2024 Estimated HUD Entitlement $370,000
+ Estimated Program Income $5,000
- CDBG Administration (20% of entitlement+
program income)$75,000.00
Available for CDBG Projects $300,000.00
Capital Projects:
Applicant Project Name Amount of Request Amount of Award
City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities
Pedestrian Priority Network
Infrastructure Improvements $149,450.00 $149,450.00
Kitsap Community Resources Weatherization and Minor Home $70,000.00 $70,000.00
Kitsap Community Resources BE$T $40,000.00 $40,000.00
Total Requested: $259,450.00 $259,450.00
Total Estimated amount available for Capital Projects $243,750.00 $300,000.00
-$15,700.00 $40,550.00
Job Training Projects:
Applicant Project Name Amount of Request Amount of Award
The Coffee Oasis HOPE Inc. Job Training Program $75,000.00 $ -
Total Requested: $75,000.00 $0.00
Total Amount Available for Public Service Projects (up to 15%)$56,250.00 $0.00
-$18,750.00 $0.00
Contingencies:
Capital Projects: City of Bremerton Public Works and Kitsap Community Resources Weatherization and BE$T programs will be fully awarded
Any unallocated funds from the 2024 entitlement will be rolled to next year's funding process for a future project.
IF LESS THAN $370,000 MINUS THE UNALLOCATED AMOUNT OF $40,550 IS RECEIVED:
Kitsap Community Resources BE$T program would receive less funding.
If anything beyond these contingencies the Project Review Committee will reconvene
Exhibit A
2024 COORDINATED GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, HOME-ARP, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency- Project Name-Project Information-Description Request Award
AGAPE
Koinonia Inn O&M
Project Type: Service (Operations & Maintenance)
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: Kitsap County
21 Individuals $53,594
CIAH $0
Funds will be used to pay operations and maintenance costs including salary and benefits of a part time maintenance
staff for the Koinonia Inn transitional housing. Koinonia Inn provides pregnant, parenting, and post-partum women
and their children a safe, stable environment, including case management services, while they participate in
substance abuse treatment and seek permanent housing. All participants are extremely low-income households with
incomes at or below fifty percent (50%) of the area median income.
AGAPE
Sisyphus II Housing Case Management and O&M
Project Type: Service (Operations & Maintenance)
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: Kitsap County
110 Individuals $90,411
CIAH $0
Funds will be used to pay operations and maintenance costs including salary and benefit costs of part time case
managers and a maintenance staff for Sisyphus II permanent supportive housing. Sisyphus II provides case
management services and a clean and sober living environment for homeless, chronically homeless, low to very low
income, disabled, substance use dependent individuals and their families.
BREMERTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
Evergreen Bright Start Property
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: City of Bremerton
30 Units $5,000,000
CIAH, COB HOME
$4,000,000 TOTAL
($3,424,697 CIAH
$575,303 COB
HOME)
Funds requested will be used for the acquisition of a new 30-unit apartment complex which will include 24 affordable
units with wrap around services for vulnerable young adults ages 18 – 24, at or below 30% AMI, with behavioral
health disabilities, homeless or at risk of homelessness including families with children, unaccompanied homeless
young adults, or domestic violence young adult survivors. Two units will be maintained for live-in managers and four
will be for office and service spaces. Rental Assistance and Section 8 Project Based Vouchers will be used to keep the
rents affordable, and BHA will partner with other community organizations for the wrap around services.
EAGLES WINGS COORDINATED CARE
Supportive Housing
Project Type: Service (Rental Assistance and O&M)
Location: Bremerton, Port Orchard, Silverdale
Service Area: Kitsap County
150 Individuals $1,1328,368
CIAH
$245,556
CIAH
Funds will be used to pay for administrative and personnel costs, rental assistance to homeless individuals at or below
30% Area Median Income, and operations and maintenance costs for a building that will provide supportive services
and 8 transitional housing beds and 1 medical respite bed to homeless individuals to stabilize them and assist them in
moving toward more permanent housing.
Exhibit B
FOUNDATION FOR THE CHALLENGED
FFC Home XIII
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
1 Unit (Group Home
serving 3 individuals)
$150,000
CIAH, HOME
$150,000
CIAH
Funds will be used to support the acquisition costs, developer fee, and project management fee for the acquisition
and rehabilitation of a 3-bedroom home in Bremerton. The home will be rehabilitated, used as a group home to
provide affordable, accessible housing to three tenants with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Kitsap Tenant
Support Services will provide the 24/7 day and night supportive services.
HELPLINE HOUSE
Neighbor Helping Neighbor Capital
Campaign
Project Type: Public Facility
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: City of Bainbridge Island
1 Facility
(2,500 individuals)
$300,000
CDBG
$50,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for predevelopment costs including design and engineering to support the construction of a 12,000
square foot community resource center and food bank on the existing site. The new center will address current
limitations with existing facility and greatly expand the agency’s capacity to provide social service programming that
more holistically address growing needs in the community.
HOUSING KITSAP
Almira Affordable Housing
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bremerton (Outside the City Limits)
Service Area: Kitsap County
72 Units $350,000
CIAH
$350,000
CIAH
Funds will be used for consultant, architectural and engineering pre-development costs to design a 72+ unit
affordable housing project on a site owned by Housing Kitsap, adjacent to Kitsap Mental Health Services (KMHS). The
design would take the project from concept to building permit ready while Housing Kitsap continues to seek other
funding sources including possible Low Income Housing Tax Credits. This project would be part of a larger project
partnership between Housing Kitsap and KMHS which will include shared roads and utilities for this project and a
KMHS campus expansion.
HOUSING KITSAP
Conifer Woods Exterior Siding and Painting
Project Type: Housing (Rental Rehab)
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: Kitsap County
72 Units $532,296
CDBG $0
Funds will be used to pay for labor and materials associated with exterior painting and siding repairs at Conifer Woods
Apartments in Port Orchard. The 72-unit complex includes nine 3-story buildings constructed in 1991 serving low-
income families. The property includes 18 Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers units which caps the tenant payment for
rent and utilities to no more than 30% of their income. Housing Kitsap acquired the property in 2006 to preserve the
affordable housing.
HOUSING KITSAP
Home Rehabilitation Program
Project Type: Housing (Homeownership Rehab)
Location: Varies
Service Area: Kitsap County
10 Households $225,000
CDBG
$160,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for personnel, administration, and construction costs associated with the home rehabilitation
program which provides 20-year deferred loans or grants to very-low and extremely low-income homeowners for
repairs to address health, safety, and accessibility issues. Housing Kitsap staff performs the home inspections, creates
a scope of work, assists homeowners with contractor selection, monitors the progress and signs off project
completion and contractor payments.
HOUSING KITSAP
Housing Stabilization
Project Type: Service (Rental Assistance and O&M)
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: Kitsap County
60 Individuals $250,000
CIAH
$149,810
CIAH
Funds will be used to pay for rental assistance and associated personnel and administrative costs of the Housing
Stabilization Program. The program is designed to promote the economic independence of families. The Program
assists families who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness by helping them access and/or maintain safe, stable, and
affordable housing, providing rental assistance and other supportive services.
HOUSING KITSAP
Madrona Manor Roof Replacement
Project Type: Housing (Rental Rehab)
Location: Silverdale
Service Area: Kitsap County
40 Units $155,000
CDBG
$100,000
CDBG
Funds will be used to pay for construction costs associated with the removal and replacement of the roof including
labor, materials and permits, at Madrona Senior Housing in Port Orchard. The property is a 2-story, 40-unit complex,
constructed in 1997 and serves seniors 55+ with incomes at or below 45% Area Median Income. The roof was
identified as an urgent need in the Physical Needs Assessment completed in April 2022 by a third party.
HOUSING KITSAP
Southern Cross Affordable Housing
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: Kitsap County
4 Units $400,000
CIAH, HOME
$400,000
HOME
Funds will be used to pay for construction costs of 4 units of rental housing with Section 8 Project Based Vouchers and
will serve households with incomes between 30% - 50% of Area Median Income. The housing will include 2 single-
family units with attached ADU’s (located in daylight basement). The main house has 3 bedrooms with a 2-bedroom
ADU. The units have separate garages and entrances with no shared space.
HOUSING RESOURCES BAINBRIDGE
Ericksen Affordable Housing
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: City of Bainbridge Island
18 Units $2,000,000 CIAH,
HOME, HOME-ARP
$1,947,542 HOME,
HOME-ARP
Funds requested will be used for architect, engineering, and construction costs for the development Ericksen
Apartments, an 18-unit affordable rental housing community on Bainbridge Island. The apartments will be one and
two bedrooms targeted to elderly, veterans, domestic violence survivors, and family household, prioritizing those at
risk of homelessness. The units will serve those with income at or below 50% Area Median Income and there will be
seven project-based Section 8 vouchers prioritized for very low-income households (30% AMI). HRB will also partner
with Helpline House to provide supportive services to the residents.
KITSAP COMMUNITY RESOURCES (KCR)
BE$T Program
Project Type: Microenterprise Business Assistance
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
24 Individuals $40,000
CDBG
$30,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for staff, program costs, and direct client support costs of the Business, Education, Support &
Training (BE$T) Program which increases economic opportunities for low-income individuals who want to start or
expand their own micro-enterprise business by providing entrepreneurial training, technical assistance, and job
creation through 8-week training classes offered once per quarter. A micro-enterprise business is a business with five
or fewer employees, including the owner.
KITSAP COMMUNITY RESOURCES (KCR)
Weatherization and Minor Home Repair
Project Type: Housing (Homeownership Rehab)
Location: Varies
Service Area: Kitsap County
21 Households $130,000
CDBG
$130,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for contractor labor and materials, program staff wages & benefits, and related support costs for
the Weatherization Program. The Program works with pre-approved Kitsap County contractors to perform
weatherization measures and minor home repair for homeowner and rental households resulting in 30% reduction in
energy usage. The program serves households below 50% Area Median Income with priority given to those with
extremely high housing burden, seniors, disabled persons, and families with children under 19 years of age,
throughout Kitsap County.
KITSAP MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (KMHS)
ADU Project
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
5 Units $730,415
CIAH
$730,415
CIAH
Funds will be used for the costs associated with purchasing and installing 3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on
existing sites owned by Kitsap Mental Health Services in the City of Bremerton. Costs will include the purchase,
equipment and delivery charges, on-site work, permits, taxes, and fees. The ADUs include 1 – one bedroom and 2
double studios to serve 5 single adults with incomes of 30% AMI or less, a mental health diagnosis, and receiving
services from KMHS. Tenants will pay 30% of their income for housing and will work with a housing support specialist
on goals weekly to live independently in these units.
KITSAP MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Pendleton Place
Project Type: Service (Operations & Maintenance)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
72 Individuals $1,029,000
CIAH
$699,522
CIAH
Funds will be used to pay a portion of operations and maintenance which includes the personnel and administrative
costs of providing 24/7 on-site staff at Pendleton Place, a permanent supportive housing complex serving individuals
with chronic/severe mental illness and/or substance use disorders who also have a documented history of chronic
homelessness. KMHS staff offer tenancy supports to all residents including life skills (budgeting, cooking, cleaning,
etc.). All tenants have housing stability plans including referrals to community resources.
PENINSULA COMMUNITY HEALTH
Medical Respite Facility
Project Type: Public Facility
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
1 Facility
(670 individuals)
$1,500,000
CIAH
$1,500,0000
CIAH
Funds will be used for tenant improvement costs, furnishings, and IT costs for the 22-bed medical respite center
building renovation in downtown Bremerton. The facility will serve homeless patients from throughout the county
and will provide 24/7 support for up to 30 days for patients recuperating from an acute illness or injury and develop
individual exit plans, enabling safe transition to more stable environments. It will include an onsite medical and
behavioral health clinic, along with nutrition support, medication management, and community resource
coordination.
PENINSULA COMMUNITY HEALTH
Sage Apartments
Project Type: Housing (New Units)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton
29 Units $2,000,000
CIAH $0
Funds will be used for completion of the partially constructed Sage Apartments, a 29-unit studio apartment building
which includes two ground-level ADA accessible units. When completed, each studio unit of approximately 385
square feet will include an open living space/bedroom, bathroom, kitchen space, and closet with in-unit washer and
dryer, along with a balcony. The units will be prioritized for healthcare workforce housing across multiple income
brackets with 50% of the units targeted towards households with incomes below 60% AMI. The project will utilize a
mix of unit-based vouchers and voucher holders as appropriate by the voucher-issuing agency.
POSTPARTUM MAMAS
Postpartum Mamas
Project Type: Service (Rental Assistance and O&M)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
50 Individuals $290,000
CIAH $0
Funds will be used to pay for rental assistance to clients and operations and maintenance including personnel,
administrative and programming costs associated with the program which provides mental health support groups to
mothers, in person and via zoom, experiencing depression, postpartum depression, anxiety, infertility, domestic
violence, single-parenting and all related motherhood struggles in a safe and confidential environment.
SOUTH KITSAP HELPLINE
Expanded Food Distribution Site
Project Type: Public Facility
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: South Kitsap
1 Facility
(6,000 individuals)
$800,000
CDBG
$222,924
CDBG
Funds will be used for a portion of the concrete costs for the new construction of a modernized food bank and multi-
service center in South Kitsap County, to replace the existing outdated facility. The new facility will serve all South
Kitsap and will allow the agency to expand outreach to address the nutritional and deeper stability needs of people
who are unhoused, experiencing poverty, and facing emergency situations.
2024 CDBG Project Review Committee Funding Reccomendations Project DescriptionsCDBG STAFF ADMINISTRATION FUNDING MICROENTERPRISE FUNDINGKitsap Community Resources: Business Education Support and TrainingCDBG CAPITAL FUNDING WEATHERIZATION AND MINOR HOME REPAIRKitsap Community Resources‐Weatherization and Minor Home Repair$1Funds will be used to provide weatherization and minor home repair services for a minimum of 8 homes within the City of Bremerton. The funds will specifically be used for contractor labor and materials to install weatherization measures such as surface insulation (attics, walls, floors, and heating ducts), energy efficient heat systems, priority air sealing, and installation of ventilation. Funds will also be used to achieve additional home repairs such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical repairs necessary to ensure the preservation of installed measures. Health and safety improvements will also be prioritized, including shower grab bars, slips trips and falls, and wheelchair ramps. Grant administration is the general management and coordination of the CDBG/HOME programs, including federal regulation compliance, annual monitoring, citizen participation and development of other sources of funding for community development. 20% of our CDBG entitlement plus program income may be used for planning and administrative costs to deliver the CDBG program requirements. Those funds not being used for administration and planning purposes will be rolled into project use. The BE$T program is designed for low‐income individuals and those with limited funds who are interested in mastering the skills necessary to start or expand their own business. Program‐wide BE$T plans to provide our Business Basics training to 48 unduplicated individuals during the year; have 30 businesses started, host at least 10 workshops/networking events and create 20 new jobs while retaining 8. With the use of CDBG funds the program helps new businesses (1) Develop their business concept; (2) Define and understand their target customer base; (3) Learn about money management and break‐even point analysis; (4) Study cash flow, pricing, taxes and financial statements; (5) Learn how to set up operations including legal structure; (6) Design a marketing and sales plan; and (7) Develop their own basic business plan.In addition to the eight week business training program, BE$T offers ongoing support for their graduates.Bremerton Public Works‐Pedestrian Priority Network Infrastructure ImprovementsThis project will create 8 new curb ramps and 2 ADA compiant alley driveways along 15th St and 440 lineal feet of sidewalk along N Lafayette Ave., building upon the ADA accessible infrastructure in previous CDBG awards including the planned improvements to Haddon Park. In alignment with the City's ADA transition plan and goals, this project will improve ADA access to transit, city parks, schools, and improve walkability for pedestrians by removing barriers for those with disabilities, and provide connected corridors for foot traffic. Exhibit C
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 25, 2023
Resolution No. 3367 to approve the
Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to
the Fisher Plat located within the East
Bremerton Urban Growth Area
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 1,2023
Department: Public Works
Presenter: Janelle Hitch
Phone: (360) 473-5285
SUMMARY:
An applicant has requested wastewater service for properties that are outside of the City limits within
the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA) and within the City’s Sewer Service Area. The
applicant has requested and extension of City sewer service to this property and is proposing 189
single-family residences in conformance with Kitsap County zoning.
Pursuant to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040, properties located outside of the City
limits must annex to obtain wastewater services; however, per BMC 15.03.040(b) the City Council
can may approve service in certain circumstances, including when annexation is infeasible. Staff
have analyzed the subject properties and consider annexation infeasible at this time. The action
before the Council is to approve a Resolution for a Policy Exception to provide Wastewater service
within the East Bremerton UGA.
A Public Hearing was held during the October 18, 2023 Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 3367 Updated 11/1/23 10:54 AM Staff Memorandum
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): There are no fiscal impacts associated with this
request.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. 3367 and authorize the Mayor to execute the outside utility agreement
in substantially the same form as presented in Exhibit B. to allow the Fisher Plat properties to receive
wastewater service from the City of Bremerton pursuant to BMC Section 15.03.040.”
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
7A
Updated
Page 1 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 3367
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, authorizing the extension of wastewater
utility services to the Fisher Plat properties, located outside the
City limits by within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a general policy for providing
City utility services beyond city limits in Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040 per
Ordinance 5306 passed on August 17, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.03.040 of the BMC established a general policy that
properties located outside the City limits seeking wastewater utility services to said property
must first annex into the City; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 15.03.040(b) of the BMC identifies policy exceptions in
which the City Council, in its sole and absolute discretion, may provide City wastewater utility
service to properties outside the City limits without annexation; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 15.03.040(b)(1) allows an exception for cases where the
City Council determines that annexation of a property located within the City’s urban growth
area (UGA) is not currently feasible; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties (tax parcels 072402-2-107-2007 & 072402-2-
104-2000), are located within the East Bremerton UGA; and
WHEREAS, per annexation provisions set forth in Chapter 35.13 RCW, the City
may only annex properties that are contiguous to the city limits; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are not currently adjacent to City limits, and
thus would require a larger area to be annexed to make annexation feasible; and
WHEREAS, to annex, through the petition methods of annexation as codified in
Chapter 35.13 RCW, a larger area would be difficult to annex at this time, as the City does not
have sufficient annexation agreements in place for this to be successful; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the subject properties has agreed to construct
wastewater infrastructure in and near the properties and connect to existing City infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works & Utilities finds the proposed
extension of the wastewater utility services consistent with the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
for the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Page 2 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth above in this
resolution are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted herein.
SECTION 2. Based on the findings set forth in the recitals above, the City
Council shall exercise its discretion as authorized pursuant to BMC 15.03.040, and the City will
provide wastewater utility services to the properties at the Fisher Plat (tax parcels 072402-2-107-
2007 & 072402-2-104-2000), located outside the City limits but within the East Bremerton
Urban Growth Area. A vicinity map of the subject property is shown as Exhibit A. This service
will be provided as annexation of the property located within the City’s urban growth area is not
currently feasible. Service to this property is provided conditioned upon the owner of the
property for which service is authorized execute the Outside Utility Agreement shown as
Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____
day of __________________, 20____.
JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Resolution Rev. 01 2023.doc
Page 3 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
Exhibit A
Fisher Plat Vicinity Map
Page 4 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
Exhibit B
Return Address: City Clerk
City of Bremerton
345 Sixth Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
AUDITOR/RECORDER’S INDEXING FORM
Document Title(s): 1. Outside Utilities Agreement
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: N/A
Grantor(s): 1. John C Fisher & Shawna L Epp
Additional names on page 3-4 of document.
Grantee(s): 1. The City of Bremerton
Additional names on page 5 of document.
Legal Description:
(abbreviated)
A PTN OF THE NW ¼ OF SEC 07, ALL IN THE TWP 24 N, RNG 2E, W.M., IN KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Additional legal is on page 6 of document.
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 072402-2-104-2000 & 072402-2-107-2007
Project Name:
Fisher Plat Sewer Connection
OUTSIDE UTILITIES AGREEMENT
WHEREAS the Bremerton Municipal Code requires property outside the city boundaries to
support annexation to the City of Bremerton as a condition for receiving City utilities (BMC
15.02.040 and 15.03.040); and
WHEREAS the City of Bremerton has a primary obligation to its citizens to allocate
limited service resources for adequate growth and development within the City; and
WHEREAS the undersigned, as owner of a parcel outside the City of Bremerton, has made
application for city utilities;
Page 5 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned owner (hereinafter "Owner") of real property
located in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, (hereinafter "Property"), legally described as:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
and the City of Bremerton (hereinafter "City"), in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth
herein including the furnishing of utility services by the City of Bremerton, do hereby promise and
agree as follows:
1. Services Provided. City of Bremerton shall provide utility services consistent with
service areas defined by the City comprehensive utility plans as amended, and terms and conditions
of a current Letter of Availability from the Bremerton Utilities Department.
2. Rates and Charges. Owner shall pay when due all connection charges, assessments,
and rates established for city utility services by City ordinance for the Owner's user class.
3. Street Standards. Development of the property described above shall comply with
the development standards of City of Bremerton’s adopted street standards.
4. Utility Improvements. Sewer
5. Annexation. Owner, by signing below, grants to the City of Bremerton a Limited
Power of Attorney to include this Agreement as Owner's consent to the annexation of the Property
as part of any Notice of Intent or Petition for Annexation presented to the City of Bremerton.
The annexation petition supported by this Power may include proportional assumption of
the City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. The petition shall require the concurrent adoption
of land uses designated in any urban fringe comprehensive plan approved for the annexation area
pursuant to RCW 35.13.177, or if none has been adopted, the land uses for annexed property as set
forth in the Bremerton Zoning Code as amended.
This Power of Attorney is nonrevocable.
6. Enforcement. Violation of this Agreement may result in the immediate termination
of utility services to the above-described property as well as other remedies provided by law.
7. Covenants. The undersigned further agrees that this Agreement and the promise
made herein constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned
and his heirs, successors, and assigns, and that this Agreement shall be filed for record in the office
of the Kitsap County Auditor.
Page 6 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
8. Severability. If any provision of this agreement shall be adjudged by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such judgment shall not affect,
impair, or invalidate the remainder of this agreement.
OWNER(S):
DATED: BY:
John C Fisher, Owner
BY:
Shawna L Epps, Owner
BY:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
On this day, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
personally appeared John C Fisher, to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they signed the same
as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _____ day of _____________________,
20_____.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at:
My appointment expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
Page 7 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
On this day, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
personally appeared Shawn L Epp, to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they signed the same
as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _____ day of _____________________,
20_____.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at:
My appointment expires:
Page 8 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
CITY OF BREMERTON
DATED: BY:
Greg Wheeler, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
Thomas Knuckey
Director of Public Works and Utilities
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kylie J. Finnell, Bremerton City Attorney
Angela Hoover, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Outside Utilities Agreement Rev. 09 2021.docx
Page 9 of 9
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL NUMBER 072402-2-104-2000
RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201605060109, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
PARCEL NUMBER 072402-2-107-2007
RESULTANT PARCEL D OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201605060109, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Subject Parcels
072402-2-104-2000
&
072402-2-107-2007
To: City Council
From: Janelle Hitch, Managing Engineer – Development, of Public Works and Utilities
Date: 9/15/2023
Re: Fisher Plat Request for Utility Services outside the City of Bremerton City Limits
Request: The Applicant, John Fisher and Shawna Epp, have requested City wastewater utility
services for a proposed 189-lot subdivision in the Enetai neighborhood. The Fisher Plat is
proposed for tax parcels 072402-2-107-2007 & 072402-2-104-2000 overlooking Port Orchard
Narrows (the water body) to the east and bounded by the following streets: Hillside Drive NE, NE
30th Street and NE Enetai Beach Road (see Exhibit 1 Site Map).
City Council’s Decision: Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040, “It is the
general policy of the City of Bremerton that properties located outside the City limits annex into
the City before wastewater utility services are provided to those properties. For the purpose of
this section, “service” means extension of and/or service connections to City wastewater utilities
to property located outside City limits.” The City Council may, in its sole and absolute discretion,
provide wastewater utility services to properties outside of the City limits if certain conditions
are met. The relevant exception for the Council to allow wastewater utility services without
annexation falls under BMC 15.03.040 (b) (1) "Annexation Not Feasible.”
Department of Community Development (DCD) Analysis of Annexation: Pursuant to Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) 15.30.040 when an owner of a property located outside the City limits
requests extension of utility service, the City Council may provide wastewater utility services to
those properties if annexation is not feasible. This portion of this document summarizes why
annexation for tax parcels 072402-2-107-2007 & 072402-2-104-2000 (the subject parcels) is not
considered feasible at this time.
Exhibit 2, attached, shows the location of the potential annexation request in Enetai. The figure
shows the city limits of Bremerton and the Kitsap County jurisdiction.
Per state law and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, you may annex property if it is contiguous
to City of Bremerton limits. As the subject properties are not contiguous to the City limits, the
City could not annex this property alone. To make annexation possible, more propertie s would
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, UTILITIES
& ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
need to be included into the annexation area to make this area contiguous to the City of
Bremerton limits.
When reviewing a larger possible annexation area (identified as the Annexation Study Area in
Exhibit 1), annexation analysis using the Petition Method of Annexation was performed. This
commonly used annexation method requires the signatures of property owners representing
60% of the total assessed property value of the area to be in support of the proposed annexation.
This proposed annexation area does not have the required 60% of the total assessed property
value as illustrated here:
Proposed Area includes:
~350 acres; see the Annexation Exhibit for the proposed annexation area.
o 483 parcels;
o Assessed property value of $169,023,410
60% of the total property value needed to finalize the process = $101,414,046
In order to make this annexation viable, the City needs to obtain annexation agreements or
petition signatures with the property owners within this area which equates to about $100
million in assessed property value.
Therefore, if the City received a Petition to Annex from the property owner, this request will
not be successful as the City does not currently have the support of 60% of the total assessed
property values for the properties proposed to be annexed. With the requester petitioning the
City to annex, the City would have 7.2% of the total assessed property values in the area
proposed to be annexed.
Proposed Wastewater Service Extension: In order for the City to provide wastewater service to
the Fisher Plat, the developer will be required to extend the existing sewer service. Per the 2014
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, the project area is within the Trenton Avenue Sewer
Basin service area (“TRT-1”). The preliminary design of the extension that would service the
Fisher Plat is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and sized to accommodate future
development. The extension would include approximately 4,000 feet of 6 -inch force main and
a lift station. Capacity analysis of the existing system suggests that there is capacity in the system
to handle the additional flow at full future build-out.
Fiscal impacts of not providing utility service are:
Not receiving the system extension.
Loss of revenue of approximately $1.5 million in General Facility Charges; and
Loss of approximately $250,000 annually in usage charges.
Summary: As demonstrated in the DCD Annexation Analysis, a significant number of additional
properties are needed to support annexation of this area. As such, Public Works staff consider
annexation as currently infeasible. The City Council must decide in its sole and absolute
discretion whether to provide wastewater service to this property in accordance with BMC
15.03.040 (b)(1) - Annexation Not Feasible.
Exhibit 1: Site Map
Exhibit 2 – Annexation Study
Published for
October 18
Council Meeting
ITEM 6A – Public Comments
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:31 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Ned Lever
<Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Re: Fisher plat
Good morning and happy foggy Thursday.
As you already know, my husband Blake Hoffer and I have been emailing the council and engineers
regarding this ever evolving plat. We live directly adjacent to the plat on Hillside drive N.E. and have
lived in our home since 2010 and purchased the empty lot next to us in 2015 from our elderly neighbors
that could no longer care for the property. When we moved into our home in 2010 our elderly
neighbors, whom have both since passed away, told us that The Cheney family, the former owners of
the property never wanted this property to be developed. So in 2016 when the county rezoned parcels
in the area to UR due to steep slopes and changing landscape we had hopes that Cheney Senior’s vision
for this property would remain. But instead his children that inherited his property and wealth,
petitioned to have the property remain urban low density. They sited that the property was unchanged
and that neighbors were against rezoning. This is absolutely false. Everyone in our community and
neighborhood know how much this property has changed over time due to excessive rain and severe
heat and know putting 200 homes on this property would be incredibly dangerous. The documentation
stated that the parcel had remained unchanged since 2012 and again, that’s categorically false. The
hillside which is designated critical area, has slowly been crumbling for the last decade. They also
sighted in this appeal that the parcel is “surrounded by subdivisions highly developed at a much greater
density” which is also false. Our home in particular is zoned as urban restricted (1-3/ac) and the council
members that drove through enetai are likely aware it is urban restricted on that side as well. The
county at that time must had believed the appeal was true because that particular plat remained urban
low while all other surrounding properties were rezoned to urban restricted.
To be honest, this should had not happened in the first place because all of the soil density and steep
slopes are the same on that plat so letting them keep the urban low zone feels dangerous. I will attach a
picture of how the property surrounding is currently zoned as well as a link to the Cheney foundation
paperwork I am referring to. I find this all mildly suspicious that the Cheney foundation fought so hard to
keep that particular plat zoned for urban low while also putting the property up for sale in 2015.
Personal opinion, they did this to make it more desirable to developers as the property close to this plat
that is currently up for sale and zoned urban restricted is sitting untouched. The Cheney foundation then
waited 3 years for the property to sell to the current owner, John Fisher who also recently acquired the
Winslow Mall on Bainbridge island and is upheaving small businesses to “revitalize” the space.
I will also attach an article from the Kitsap Sun that was published in 2015 with information on the
historical aspect of this property. It has a deep rooted history and the fact that there is potential it could
become a subdivision makes my stomach ache as this has been such an important part of Bremerton’s
history for so long.
I listened in last night to the study session through zoom, my husband was in attendance but we had a
sick child at home so only one of us could make it in person but I think Eric specifically had a comment
that really stuck with me when he said “what are the ramifications of our choice 10 or 20 years down
the road”.
I really appreciate you all taking the time to hear us residence next week at the public hearing as we all
know this is more than just approving potential sewer. Said extension would run through enetai creek
with is documented to have salmon. I would be happy to have any one of you out to our home to see
our community and why we are all fighting so hard for this incredibly diverse property to remain intact.
Per your 2023 agenda, this project does not meet the criteria of affordable housing and certainly does
not protect green space.
I only wish there was a way for the city to acquire this diverse property to help protect it for future
generations, similar to the grand forest that is protected through a land trust on Bainbridge island. With
all of its history, I would hope that would be worth something.
I honestly could go on and on but will save the rest of my thoughts for the hearing next week.
Have a wonderful rest of your week and we greatly appreciate all you do for our city.
Sincerely,
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
Cheney foundation rezoning document
http://compplan.kitsapgov.com/Documents/Cheney_PC_Hearing_May_10_2016.pdf
Property historical data from Kitsap Sun
https://archive.kitsapsun.com/news/local/storied-enetai-property-on-sale-for-5-million-ep-
1278293263-354474951.html
Blue is urban restricted and yellow is urban low density. This map does not include critical areas.
From: Karina Stone <karina.i.stone@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 1:03 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Opposition to Sewer Extension serving Fisher Property
Dear Councilmember Coughlin-
I am writing in opposition to the proposed City of Bremerton sewer extension to serve the un-annexed Fisher property
located at the end of Keel, Helm & Rozewood area. The consideration of such an extension is irresponsible for the
following reasons:
• The City has been unable to provide the annual and long-term maintenance cost for the sewer extension,
pump station, and associated emergency storage.
• The City has been unable to provide the rate increases to City of Bremerton residents to cover the cost of
the annual and long-term maintenance. City of Bremerton residents should not foot the bill for utility
services to properties that are not annexed into the City.
• The Fisher property seeked annexation, however the surrounding community was overwhelmingly not in
support of annexation. It does not appear the intent of the BMC to consider a non-contiguous parcel without
majority community support and still consider extension of City utility services.
• The preliminary sewer plan schematically located a sewer pump station within critical areas. The plan failed
to place the required 15,000 gallon emergency storage tank. When located in critical areas, failures of such
systems would have catastrophic impacts to downstream neighboring properties. The allowance of the
pump station and emergency overflow shall not be permitted in critical areas.
• The cost to surrounding County property owners to hook to sewer in such an event as a septic failure or an
addition to a home would be a burden that many could not cover. The connection fees and installation of
side sewer laterals (and in some cases individual e-one pumps) would be at minimum in the $20k range for
a single homeowner.
I urge the City council to closely consider the ramifications to not only City of Bremerton property owners, but also to
the surrounding county parcels within the UGA, should this sewer line be provided to the Fisher property. Please
take into account all of the items outlined above. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Karina Stone
Manette Resident
From: Brian Anderson <briananderson554@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:47 AM
To: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jordan Lewis <lewisjcnw@gmail.com>; Andrew
Sharman <andsha@gmail.com>; Orrin Koepke <Koepkeorrin@gmail.com>; David Albright
<david@dalbright.com>
Subject: Vote AGAINST request to extend city sewer in East Bremerton
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to urge you all to vote AGAINST the developer's request to extend the city sewer out into
the urban growth boundary in East Bremerton.
If you have not already read the opinion piece in KitsapSun explaining why this would be a wrong
decision, I strongly urge you to do so. Link here
This topic was already decided upon by Bremerton voters, and the resounding will of the people was
against this.
I recognize there is a housing affordability issue; however, we are also in a climate crisis and clear-
cutting 50 acres of old forest to make way for 200+ homes in a critical watershed is not the solution.
Instead, I'd like to see more surface parking lots and abandoned buildings in Bremerton's core get
converted into housing. Our community should be pro-density and walkability - not pro suburban
sprawl.
As heat waves grow stronger and winter storms get more severe, these forested areas near our city will
play more and more of a vital role in terms of climate resiliency. I truly hope you will consider all these
factors and even go walk the proposed site to be developed before you vote to allow its destruction.
These valuable natural spaces once gone are lost forever.
Sincerely,
Brian Anderson
D3 Resident
From: Orrin Koepke <koepkeorrin@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:17 AM
To: Brian Anderson <briananderson554@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler
<Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jordan Lewis <lewisjcnw@gmail.com>; Andrew Sharman
<andsha@gmail.com>; David Albright <david@dalbright.com>
Subject: Re: Vote AGAINST request to extend city sewer in East Bremerton
Agree, it’s an exploitative and inappropriate development for the area.
-Orrin Koepke
D3 Resident
From: Donna Homan <dlhoman2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:51 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher Plat
Concerns with Fisher Plat
Donna Homan
TO: City Council
FROM: Donna Homan
DATE: Oct 13. 2023
RE: Fisher Plat
Let me start by saying there have been no leters sent to the public about this proposal. I just found out
the day before the mee�ng. This affects all of us. Not only the hundreds of residents but also the forest
land, wildlife, habitats and the environment. What about the proximity to the water? I addi�on to all of
this, 189 lots will affect not only EMS and police services but schools, transporta�on, postal services and
waste management.
One of the reasons we moved to Rozewood was for the quiet street and safety. As you know, an atempt
was made in 2022 for annexa�on which failed.
I strongly do not think this proposal would be good for the public or the environment.
Thank you for your �me.
Donna Homan
3010 Rozewood Dr
From: Donna Homan <dlhoman2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:42 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Public Comments - Fisher Plat (Donna Homan)
Thank you. I’m also concerned about the animals and owls in the neighborhood. There are so many
factors with this proposal
Donna
From: Ka�e Herzog <krherzog@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 4:48 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Enetai Beach development
I am a Bremerton resident and I am wri�ng to voice my concern over the proposed Enetai Beach
development. Besides the added stress and traffic to the neighborhood, demolishing more forest for this
project is unconscionable and directly contradicts the city and county’s stated climate resilience goals.
The neighborhood is livid over this plan, which will enrich outside developers while destroying what litle
forest we have le�. Please take our voices into considera�on.
Ka�e Herzog
From: David Gravenkemper <dgravenkemper@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 1:48 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Stop City Council Resolution No. 3367
Dear Bremerton City Council Members,
I am part of a property ownership group at 2256 Enetai Beach Road. I am requesting that the city
council stops Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat
located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area.
The development in question is home to a delicate ecosystem that includes a salmon bearing creek
(Enetai Creek), home to multiple bald eagles, home old growth trees, and home to many other diverse
wildlife. The development calls for the building of 200 homes which would severely affect the current
ecosystem. I am asking that you put a stop to Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility
Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area. This is not a suitable
location for urban development.
I am also requesting a copy of the environmental study completed for the Fisher development plan.
Please confirm receipt of this email and request for the environmental study.
Regards,
David Gravenkemper
11338 17th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
dgravenkemper@gmail.com
206-552-3198
From: Stephanie Gravenkemper <s_gravy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:42 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Stop City Council Resolution No. 3367
Dear Bremerton City Council Members, I am part of a property ownership group at 2256 Enetai Beach Road. I am requesting that
the city council stops Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area. The development in question is home to a delicate ecosystem that includes a salmon
bearing creek (Enetai Creek), home to multiple bald eagles, home old growth trees, and home to many other diverse wildlife. The development calls for the building of 200 homes which would severely affect the current ecosystem. I am asking that you put a stop to Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat located
within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area. This is not a suitable location for urban development. I am also requesting a copy of the environmental study completed for the Fisher development plan. Please confirm receipt of this email and request for the environmental study.
Regards,
Stephanie Gravenkemper 11338 17th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
From: Jack Gravenkemper <jgravenkemper04@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:44 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Cheney housing development
Dear Bremerton City Council Members,
I am part of a property ownership group at 2256 Enetai Beach Road. I am requesting that the city
council stops Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat
located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area.
The development in question is home to a delicate ecosystem that includes a salmon bearing creek
(Enetai Creek), home to multiple bald eagles, home old growth trees, and home to many other
diverse wildlife. The development calls for the building of 200 homes which would severely affect
the current ecosystem. I am asking that you put a stop to Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of
Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth
Area. This is not a suitable location for urban development.
I am also requesting a copy of the environmental study completed for the Fisher development
plan.
Please confirm receipt of this email and request for the environmental study.
- Thank you for your time,
Jack Gravenkemper
401 E Dean Boulevard a207
206-552-1365
From: jaglady56@aol.com <jaglady56@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 3:01 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Stop City Council Resolution No. 3367
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I have been coming to 2256 Enetai Beach Road for 68 years, and I currently am part of the ownership of
the property. I am against moving forward with the development of the Fisher Plat, and
Iand I am requesting that the city council stop Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility
Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area.
The development in question is home to a delicate ecosystem that includes a salmon bearing creek
(Enetai Creek), home to multiple bald eagles, home old growth trees, and home to many other diverse
wildlife. The development calls for the building of 200 homes which would severely affect the current
ecosystem. I am asking that you put a stop to Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility
Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area. I believe that this is
not a suitable location for this many home as the wildlife that lives here needs protection. I enjoy seeing
the deer, eagles and heron.
I am also requesting a copy of the environmental study completed for the Fisher development plan.
I believe a full environmental study is required before moving forward with any development of this
property, and I am shocked and appalled that The council would move forward with this project without
an environmental study in place.
Please confirm receipt of this email and request for the environmental study.
Regards,
Cathy Hatch-Daniels
1337 Lower Marine Dr.
Bremerton 98312
and
2256 Enetai Beach Road
jaglady56@aol.com
206-459-1094
From: Brock Logan <brolo716@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 6:45 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Policy Excep�on for City Sewer Service to Fischer Plat
Bremerton City Council Members,
We write to urge that you not approve the requested policy excep�on to grant city sewer services to the
proposed development of the Fischer project in the vicinity of Enetai Beach, Rosewood and Helm
Avenues and East 30th Street in East Bremerton.
The people’s representa�ves had sound reasons for prohibi�ng non-con�guous areas from being
annexed into ci�es. For similarly valid reasons, the City of Bremerton has established, as a mater of
policy, that itwill not provide city u�lity services to areas outside of its boundaries. While the City
Council, in its sole discre�on, may approve an excep�on to this policy, doing so for this project, at least at
this �me, is not jus�fied and should not be granted.
The distance between the parcels involved and exis�ng City boundaries and u�li�es is too great to
warrant such an excep�on. There is insufficient exis�ng u�lity and transporta�on infrastructure to
support such a development - a problem the City of Bremerton will likely inherit in the future. Without
meaningfully addressing these issues, the complete lack of community support in the wider area to be
impacted by the proposed extension argues strongly against this policy excep�on.
We understand that the City is currently considering only the determina�on of whether or not to
approve an excep�on to exis�ng City of Bremerton policy that would allow the extension of city sewer
services to these parcels and that the City is not making decisions on the appropriateness of the
proposed development, considering environmental impacts, addressing density and affordable housing
issues, etc… Those considera�ons and decisions will made by Kitsap County. That said, the proper�es
involved are in the Urban Growth Area and are likely to be incorporated into the City of Bremerton at
some point in future. Therefore, the City has a vested interest in when and how this property should be
developed and should, at the very least, consult and coordinate with the County to ensure that any
development in this area is consistent with the City's and community's long-term interests and needs
and is both responsible and sustainable.
As noted above, it is not a foregone conclusion that this property will be developed, at least not in the
manner currently presented by the developer in its request for City of Bremerton sewer service. Kitsap
County has not yet weighed in on what they might approve and under what condi�ons. Given the cri�cal
environmental concerns, such as unstable slopes, watershed, wetland and wildlife habitat factors
involved, there is a lot to be considered. Sufficient �me, study, community input and evalua�on must be
allowed before a decision such as this is made.
Now is not the �me to abandoned well-reasoned City policy and rush through the approval of this
request for sewer services. If this mater comes up for a vote, please vote “No.”
Thank you.
Brock and Kim Logan
Community Members
From: EDWARD DAVIS <davis13489@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 7:48 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: We are opposed to the sewer system for the Fisher development
Our family owns a house on Enetai beach and we were alerted that the Fisher
development has a proposal pending for a sewer system and ultimately 200 home
development. Please do not approve this! The neighborhood would be changed
forever and this would bring further concerns about erosion, water runoff and traffic.
Edward Davis
2234 NE Enetai Beach Drive
From: Janna Krein <jannakrein@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 7:06 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Opposed to Enetai housing development
Hello,
I am wri�ng to express my opposi�on to the proposed Enetai Beach development, which will destroy
much-needed habitat for our wildlife popula�on while doing nothing to lower housing costs for our most
vulnerable ci�zens. The neighborhood is universally opposed to this development, and because you
represent the people of this neighborhood, it is your duty to reject it as well.
Thanks,
Janna Krein, Manete
From: Jeannie Gravenkemper <jgraccoon@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:22 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Stop City Council Resolu�on No. 3367
To Bremerton City Council Members,
My maternal grandfather, Oto B. Rupp, bought our 2256 Enetai Beach Road property in April 1924. Five
genera�ons of the Rupp/ Hatch clan have spent summers and holidays there. I am reques�ng that the
city council stops Resolu�on No. 3367-the Extension of Wastewater U�lity Services to the Fisher Plat
located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area.
The eco system of the plat area includes Enetai Creek which is a salmon bearing water, many Bald eagles
and their nests, old growth Douglas Fir trees, deer, plus many more birds and criters that will no longer
have habitat in which to live. Pu�ng
200 homes in a development there is not
a suitable loca�on for urban development.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Regards,
Jeannie Hatch Gravenkemper
2238 Waverly Way East
Seatle, WA 98112
Jgraccoon@comcast.net
206 724 1831
From: Olivia Rose Muzzy <orosemuzzy@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:52 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public comment re: Fisher Plat development
Dear members of the Bremerton City Council,
Please do not extend city wastewater services to the Fisher Plat development in Enetai. This area is a
wildlife corridor and includes old growth forest. Once this natural resource is disturbed, there is no going
back. To allow this step in development would be essentially approving clear cutting for some of our
closest (and oldest) forests near the city limits, and to lose that would be an ecological travesty right
here in our own community.
Olivia Muzzy
98310 resident
From: Stephanie Vezina <stephanielvezina@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:26 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Enetai Development
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am deeply concerned about the deforestation of this area. Based on the parcel map (see attached), these
parcels are currently marked as having multiple critical areas, which include high to moderate erosion,
streams (possible fish habitat), and Bald Eagle nests. Not only will development in this area lead to a
significant loss of food and habitat for animals, but it will also have a lasting impact on continued soil
erosion and depletion of groundwater levels - generating greater risks that will affect future generations, the
land, and the environment.
While I agree we need an affordable housing solution, this is compounding problems. We need a better
plan for affordable housing that is sustainable; a siloed approach is not serving us. We are in a housing
crisis and the problem isn't just a lack of inventory, it's also economical - including unreasonable financing
options, soaring prices, and the bidding process.
I've heard that the developer may be reimbursed for sewer connection fees when legacy homes are
required to connect. Do you know if this is true?
Thanks for making space for public comments in this process for the Enetai community.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Vezina (she/her)
m: 360-250-0650
e: stephanielvezina@gmail.com
📅📅 Schedule an appointment with me
Manette Real Estate Co.
1104 Pitt Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98310
Search for your next 🏡🏡 at www.househunter360.com
From: Scott Ballinger <scott@pareto.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:19 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; KWalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Fisher development sewer connection
Hello,
I am writing to oppose the development of 200 new homes near our house in Enetai Beach.
The increased traffic & pollution will negatively impact our neighborhood. The proposed sewer line
extension serves no one but Mr Fisher, as evidenced by the resounding NO vote on annexation.
This is an environmental issue. A safety issue. A neighborhood issue. Please consider these issues before
allowing Mr Fisher to add 200 unwanted houses to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
/Scott Ballinger
2234 NE Enetai Beach Rd
206 713 6006 (cell)
From: Susan Ingham <sfingham@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5:24 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Do Not Pass Resolution No. 3367 - the Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher
Plat
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I am a property owner near the Fisher plat and am strongly opposed to Resolution No. 3367 - the
Extension of Wastewater Utility Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban
Growth Area. This area is a fragile ecosystem that includes Enetai Creek, a salmon bearing creek, as
well as habitat for many animal species including bald eagles, ospreys, herons, otters, dear, seals and
sea lions, and other diverse wildlife. There are also numerous old growth trees and other plant life that is
crucial to maintain to support these species. The extension of wastewater utility services will have an
extremely negative impact on this ecosystem and should NOT be allowed. Please do not pass
Resolution No. 3367.
Thank you,
Susan Ingham
2256 NE Enetai Beach Road
Bremerton, WA
and
2016 26th Avenue East
Seattle, WA
From: Charles Warren <apias.lab@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:27 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: proposed Rozewood development
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and property owner in opposition to the immediately-
proposed sewer installation and construction of 200+ homes on what is currently forested buffer land
adjacent to two small residential communities with dead-end road access: Rozewood and Enetai Beach.
It is unclear how the significant impacts of the sewer expansion and eventual development will be
mitigated, or if that is even possible. The current forested area targeted for development is immediately
upland of both steep upper-bank and low-bank waterfront, with limited current drainage and
floodwater control. Storm drain and sewer overflow management will inevitably direct contaminated
material into the drainage routes and onto the beach. The need for pump stations, impacts of failing
septic systems, and costs shifting to surrounding properties and taxpaying communities are significant
concerns.
As a utility provider, it is incumbent on the City of Bremerton to responsibly manage the timing and size
of potential expansions, and carefully consider the impacts and mitigations for the existing
community. Approval of the current proposed expansion is very premature, and until the many
unanswered concerns about overall development density can be resolved the applications for significant
expansion should be denied.
My family has owned property and various generations have lived in the Enetai Beach community for
more than 120 years. We are just asking that there be some balance and consideration of the current
residential density, and that this current sewer expansion not be approved until some overall concerns,
such as those above, can be addressed.
Sincerely,
Charles Warren
From: Wendy Rexin <plannerwendy@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:14 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Enetai Development
Hello,
I am curious to know if Bremerton has any guidelines for affordable housing units in new developments?
The proposed Fisher property development in Enetai purportedly aids in minimizing suburban sprawl,
but I wonder if there are any considera�ons for crea�ng affordable housing as part of the proposed
development? If not, it seems we are simply crea�ng more expensive housing in a town whose real and
desperate need is for affordable housing.
Thank you for your kindly considera�on.
Wendy Rexin
Enetai neighbor
From: Frederick Ingham <fingham@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:05 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Resolution No. 3367
Re: Resolution No. 3367
Dear City Council:
My family has owned property on Enetai Beach for over 100 years. We appreciate its serene natural
beauty. It was with great dismay that I learned of a proposal to extend city sewer service into this
undeveloped area to enable a residential development of up to 200 homes. This land is heavily
forested, which protects the slope from erosion and the Sound from toxic runoff. If a host of new
homes were built on this pristine land, there would be a significant increase in noise, crowding, erosion
and runoff of petroleum products, rubber, and lawn chemicals into Puget Sound.
Furthermore, it seems that this developer, who recently attempted to get neighbors to agree to
annexation by the City of Bremerton and lost nearly unanimously, is now trying to “end run” the process
by establishing this hookup outside of a democratic process. We neighbors have an interest in
preserving the unique environment of Enetai Beach, which protects Puget Sound and provides an oasis
for wildlife and neighbors alike. A wealthy developer should not be able to destroy the character of a
community without significant due process, review and community input.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that there has been no environmental impact assessment
evaluating the potential risks of extending the sewer line and building up to 200 homes on this
ecologically sensitive land. It would be irresponsible, (and potentially illegal?), for the Council to
approve this sewer line extension and the consequent denuding of 50 acres of forest land and building
200 homes without a very thorough, deliberate and public review of the environmental implications of
such a huge development. If I am incorrect, and such an environmental review has been done, please
provide a link to it.
You are our only hope to protect our land, our environment, and the character of our community. If this
hookup goes in, Fisher will doggedly pursue development to enrich himself at the expense of his
neighbors, the environment and Puget Sound. The only purpose of this sewer hookup is to enable this
oversized development. If you approve the one, you are guaranteeing the other will ultimately follow,
which will forever alter the character of this special part of our community.
I implore you to vote NO on this resolution. Do not initiate the destruction of 50 acres of forestland in
the heart of our community. This area is not appropriate for urban development and doesn’t need a
sewer hookup.
Fred Ingham
2256 Enetai Beach Road
From: Micah Hutchinson <hutchinsonmicah@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 9:03 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Proposed Fisher Development
Good morning, I am concerned about Bremerton's seeming support to provide sewer access to county
lands which allows for development of excessively high density neighborhoods. This recent trend of high
density development is alarming as it changes the face of our communities particularly as these
developments tend to age poorly.
I further understand there are environmental concerns with privately maintained septic systems and do
not think providing sewer access is a bad principle unto itself. However, the city providing utilities which
allow developers to circumvent reasonable density stipulations in order to maximize profits to one
entity while causing undue harm on the existing, mature forestland and communities in lieu of
establishing a reasonable development plan is failing the future of our community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Micah Hutchinson
From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:15 PM
To: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Katie Walters <kwalters@kitsap.gov>
Subject: Re: Enetai/Fisher plat Instagram post by Jeff Coughlin
Hi Sarah,
I deeply appreciate all of your public input on this. Even though you are not a Bremerton
resident, I am more than happy to respond to your input. Since you live in the County, I'm
also CC-ing your County Commissioner Katie Walters.
As you note, I use my Council social media to alert my constituents to important items
coming before Council because I value Public outreach and engagement. My social media
has all comments disabled to ensure I comply with the Washington Public Records Act --- I
have it essentially set up as a bulletin board. Users are free to share my posts and do with
them what they will, but all comments on issues before Council are required to be e-
mailed to the City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us e-mail address to ensure they are properly
recorded in the Public record.
I wanted to highlight this issue because of the potentially far-ranging impacts that the
Bremerton Council's decision may have, and because my City district (#3) is one of the two
that are closest to it. The other district that is close is #2, represented by Councilmember
Frey --- the two of us took a long tour of the area and surrounding neighborhoods the other
week to ensure we are familiar with the area, which being in County is all outside our City
districts that we are most familiar with. It is because of the potential far reaching impacts
that the Bremerton Council decided at last Wednesday's Study Session to hold a Public
Hearing this week to get more public input, and not take any action until at least two weeks
from now.
• it is not deceptively complex.
By "deceptively complex" I was trying to convey that a seemingly "simple" decision of
whether to provide Wastewater service or not, as was presented to Council, has long-
ranging and significant impacts --- one that myself and the Council are taking seriously by
taking our time on this issue to get all the facts on the table and public input heard.
A land owner is trying to build a subdivision on a piece of property zoned urban low even though it is
surrounded by urban restricted. We would share hillside dr ne with this plat and while our property is
flat and free of wetlands, it is zoned urban restricted, which it was rezoned to in 2016. This particular
property was somehow able to remain urban low even though it is more greatly affected by
environmental changes than our property. Clearly that is not on the city but I personally see that as a
failure on the county when rezoning happens.
By my reading of the Kitsap County zoning map, the majority of land to the West of the parcel
in question is also zoned Urban Low Density Residential, but I appreciate that your street on the
NW corner of the parcel is zoned Urban Restricted. I would have to defer to Commissioner
Walters and the County on any reasoning for the zoning.
•When you say “the county has it slated for development” do you simply mean it is slated for
development at some point because it’s within the urban growth area? Urban growth plans are written
for areas that are meant to be annexed by the city within 20 years and this specific parcel and urban
growth area is now sitting at around 30 years
By zoning this parcel Urban Low Density Residential, the County has intended this area to be
developed according to the regulations of the Urban Low Density Residential Zoning.
• You mention the money you receive from the developer but fail to mention how much it will cost for
the city to maintain it and failed to mention to your constituents that the potential of increased rates
may also have to happen to help with maintenance fees.
By my best understanding, there would be no increase in cost to any Bremerton residents for
maintenance of this extension, as the money paid by property owners for sewer service pays
for the maintenance. And since there would actually be a 50% rate increase for users not in
City limits, my understanding is that the City would profit from this.
• You also mentioned increasing our local housing supply is desperately needed. I partially agree with
this statement but think that AFFORDABLE HOUSING is what is desperately needed. In order to recoup
cost, this subdivions in no way would be affordable housing. And according to the Comprehensive plan
update 2044 from tonight, it sounds like the city is more interested in building dense housing in already
dense areas of town. This subdivision also strongly goes against Washington legislation rcw 36.70A.020
Nearly all increases in any housing supply reduce the cost of housing across all economic levels,
but I too deeply agree we need affordable-rate housing, and I have supported many updates to
Bremerton's zoning in the past several years to enable increased density and support missing
middle housing. There has not yet been, by my knowledge, any indication on the price of
homes in this parcel should it be developed, but I would be interested to learn that, although to
conform with Urban Low Density Residential, it's nearly guaranteed these will not be luxury
homes. This area is in the County, so none of the city goals apply to it, and I defer to
Commissioner Walters and the County on any County comprehensive planning and how it
relates to RCW 36.70A.020.
•I think it’s fair to say that this is surrounded by neighborhoods but that is only a shred of an assessment
of this area. It is forested HISTORICAL property, part of old Bremerton that existed before any of us were
born. Home to native wildlife including but not limited to deer, owls, a bear and a pack of coyotes
This is why I pointed out to folks that this is a forested area, and why, even though I have no
control over the zoning and development of this area, I genuinely am taking this request before
the Bremerton Council seriously. There are many areas north of Manette and along the 303
corridor that have been developed with a loss of local forest.
If it weren't for the efforts of Councilmember Younger and past Councils to enact a Bremerton
ordinance that required these decisions to extend sewer service outside City limits to come
before Council, it is extremely likely that sewer usage would have already been granted without
any public input or involvement.
• Yes this project could continue with septic. While the information was not easily accessible on the
Kitsap county website, it appears pierce county requires a minimum of 12,500 square feet per septic
system which would cut his density down to less than half of any of
his development options and would not even put him anywhere close to urban low density.
Thank you --- one of the outstanding questions that Council raised at last week's study session
that we want to have resolved before any vote is taken is the requirements of septic systems in
Kitsap County, along with the potential environmental impacts of septic systems.
• I as a highly impacted resident understand that these battles will be ongoing in the urban growth area
and while I do appreciate you understand that this decision is impactful, I
Hope you understand that 100s of current resident in the uga and surrounding areas will be greatly
impacted by your choice. Members that have been part of this community for decades. This will set
precedent for similar choices you make in the future that could also affect our ever dwindling green
space.
I do. It's again why I suggested Council take this slow, gather as much Public input as
possible, and get all the facts on the table and questions answered before making this
decision.
I very much look forward to you attending the Council meeting Wed. and hearing your input
in-person, and would be happy to chat with you before or after as time allows. And
encourage you to also have conversations with Commissioner Walters, who I will also be
looking to for input on this decision.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56).
From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5:44 PM
To: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Enetai/Fisher plat Instagram post by Jeff Coughlin
Attn: Council President Coughlin
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:26 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Enetai/Fisher plat Instagram post by Jeff Coughlin
Hello and good evening.
A friend within Jeff Coughlin’s district alerted me to a post he made on Instagram regarding the
proposed sewer extension to the urban growth area. While I appreciate him engaging with some of the
city dwellers that follow him on social media, I find it a bit discouraging that not only was commenting
turned off on that post(and it seems all other posts) but also the post was riddled with misinformation.
• it is not deceptively complex. A land owner is trying to build a subdivision on a piece of property
zoned urban low even though it is surrounded by urban restricted. We would share hillside dr ne with
this plat and while our property is flat and free of wetlands, it is zoned urban restricted, which it was
rezoned to in 2016. This particular property was somehow able to remain urban low even though it is
more greatly affected by environmental changes than our property. Clearly that is not on the city but I
personally see that as a failure on the county when rezoning happens.
•When you say “the county has it slated for development” do you simply mean it is slated for
development at some point because it’s within the urban growth area? Urban growth plans are written
for areas that are meant to be annexed by the city within 20 years and this specific parcel and urban
growth area is now sitting at around 30 years
• You mention the money you receive from the developer but fail to mention how much it will cost for
the city to maintain it and failed to mention to your constituents that the potential of increased rates
may also have to happen to help with maintenance fees.
• You also mentioned increasing our local housing supply is desperately needed. I partially agree with
this statement but think that AFFORDABLE HOUSING is what is desperately needed. In order to recoup
cost, this subdivions in no way would be affordable housing. And according to the Comprehensive plan
update 2044 from tonight, it sounds like the city is more interested in building dense housing in already
dense areas of town. This subdivision also strongly goes against Washington legislation rcw 36.70A.020
•I think it’s fair to say that this is surrounded by neighborhoods but that is only a shred of an assessment
of this area. It is forested HISTORICAL property, part of old Bremerton that existed before any of us were
born. Home to native wildlife including but not limited to deer, owls, a bear and a pack of coyotes
• Yes this project could continue with septic. While the information was not easily accessible on the
Kitsap county website, it appears pierce county requires a minimum of 12,500 square feet per septic
system which would cut his density down to less than half of any of his development options and would
not even put him anywhere close to urban low density.
• I as a highly impacted resident understand that these battles will be ongoing in the urban growth area
and while I do appreciate you understand that this decision is impactful, I
Hope you understand that 100s of current resident in the uga and surrounding areas will be greatly
impacted by your choice. Members that have been part of this community for decades. This will set
precedent for similar choices you make in the future that could also affect our ever dwindling green
space.
I very much look forward to the upcoming meeting on Wednesday. I’m really proud of our community
and we have spent years showing up for one another.
I promise you will hear less from me at some point this year but I feel it very necessary to speak up for
our aging neighbors that cannot make it to the meetings and for the ones that find the internet difficult
to navigate. I’ll try my best to keep my comments to 3 minutes on Wednesday. I tend to talk really fast.
Have a great week and we will all see you Wednesday.
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:28 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public comment for tonight
I have written and re written my public comment for tonight countless times and the tightest time I can
get it to is 3 minutes 30 seconds. In the event I get my time get cut off, I wanted the council to have my
full written comments from tonight.
Sincerely,
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
Hello and good evening council, I want to start by saying thank you to all of our neighbors and members of this community that have shown up in person and to those tuning in through zoom in opposition to this overhaul of the urban growth area and building of an entirely new city sewer system outside of city limits near critical areas. My name is Sarah Palama-Hoffer and my family and I are residents on hillside drive NE, directly across from the fisher plat. We have resided at this address since 2010 and purchased the empty lot next to our home in 2014 when our elderly neighbors were no longer able to maintain it. In 2016 both of our properties were rezoned from urban low density to urban restricted due to steep slopes and the physical characteristics of our properties. A portion of homes off of 30th, part of enetai beach road and portions of the properties now owned by the fishers were also rezoned to urban restricted due to the same changes. The previous owner of this plat appealed the counties decision to rezone the now fisher plat in question stating the property was unchanged since the last assessment in 2012. I am assuming the county allowed this appeal to proceed under the guise that it was in the urban growth area and could potentially be developed in the future. At the time, this parcel was up for sale, along with an adjacent property in enetai. While I cannot place the blame on any specific aspect of how this property was able to retain its urban low zoning, I do believe the county has a duty to confirm the zoning is appropriate for this area before the city approves a sewer build. Steep slopes, characteristic changes, and wetlands need to be addressed. In the almost 8 years it has been since the surrounding areas were rezoned, we have seen countless mudslides and temperatures over 100 degrees and under 15 degrees. There is absolutely no way this plat has been unchanged in that period of time. Making the choice to simply approve an entirely new sewer to be put in before any other assessments have been made would be reckless. It’s frustrating as a resident of this community to watch the city and county pass the buck back and forth on what should be done first. We hear “it’s the counties decision “ when we hear from the city. Then we hear from the county “oh that’s a city decision” so you can understand how that makes us residents feel. Like we have absolutely no representation. If the only representation we get is this 90 minute public meeting, it
feels almost inappropriate to give the city full control on approving CITY sewer to a property that has no definite plans to absorb into the city soon. We as a community already expressed our thoughts on annexation less than two years ago as it was an overwhelming no from the neighborhood. to think we will be forced to accept city lines on our property feels like our neighborhood is being sold to the highest bidder. And feels like we don’t even get a choice. Busses don’t come down the urban growth area so this in no way would be accessible to those riding public transportation, roads and sidewalks are built to county standards and would put a further strain on ems and fire services. I’m a believer in change and know in order for our community to grow, we need housing but we cannot fail to protect our counties green space and this development in no way would support the councils agenda to add affordable housing to our community. This is a for profit subdivision being built by a developer who does not even live in our community. According to an article published in the island wanderer the fishers split their time between Bainbridge island and London. They recently acquired The Winslow mall and have been drastically changing the small town charm of downtown Bainbridge. Please vote knowing how greatly this will affect our community and neighbors already living around and in the urban growth area. Those with jobs in our community, shopping at our local groceries stores, supporting local business in Bremerton, with children in our school districts and families that have cherished this city and community for many years. Thank you.
From: James Warren <jbwarren08@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:27 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject:
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and property owner in opposition to the immediately-
proposed sewer installation and construction of 200+ homes on what is currently forested buffer land
adjacent to two small residential communities with dead-end road access: Rozewood and Enetai Beach.
It is unclear how the significant impacts of the sewer expansion and eventual development will be
mitigated, or if that is even possible. The current forested area targeted for development is immediately
upland of both steep upper-bank and low-bank waterfront, with limited current drainage and
floodwater control. Storm drain and sewer overflow management will inevitably direct contaminated
material into the drainage routes and onto the beach. The need for pump stations, impacts of failing
septic systems, and costs shifting to surrounding properties and taxpaying communities are significant
concerns.
As a utility provider, it is incumbent on the City of Bremerton to responsibly manage the timing and size
of potential expansions, and carefully consider the impacts and mitigations for the existing
community. Approval of the current proposed expansion is very premature, and until the many
unanswered concerns about overall development density can be resolved the applications for significant
expansion should be denied.
My family has owned property and various generations have lived in the Enetai Beach community for
more than 120 years. We are just asking that there be some balance and consideration of the current
residential density, and that this current sewer expansion not be approved until some overall concerns,
such as those above, can be addressed.
Sincerely,
James Warren
From: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 8:39 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Public Comments - Fisher Plat Project (Blake Hoffer)
Good morning-
I have been working on my public comments for the meeting this evening and it appears I have too
much to say to stay within the three minute time limit. Is there a way to suspend the time limit for my
comments or beg/borrow time from other community members? I will copy my full statement below in
hopes of getting the full text included in the documented public comments. I have reduced the
comments considerably in an effort to get under the three minute limit (I’ve gone from over ten minutes
to just over five minutes), but a further reduction would be required. Reducing much more will miss
valuable points that the public needs to hear tonight.
Here are my full, unreduced comments for your consideration:
My name is Blake Hoffer and I have lived in my home which is bordering what is now the Fisher
plat since 2010. I have already sent the City several emails containing a lot of concerns I have
with the proposed wastewater extension and I am sure to speak tonight on at least some similar
themes, as well as others, so this will not entirely be a repeat of those emails. I trust the Council
has been provided with my emails and has read them.
I attended the study session for this proposal last week and some of the statements from the
Council have really resonated with me. First, it was stated that people who currently have septic
that could fail in the future would feel pretty lucky if this wastewater extension is provided so
they can just hook up to the City’s system. While I will not discount this experience entirely
because I am sure it can and does happen, I will offer an alternative viewpoint. First, I would like
to point out that if City sewer was such a widespread relief for the public, then it would seem the
mandate to require anyone in close proximity to hook up to it at some point is unnecessary. In
my particular situation, my property borders the proposed development area and should my
septic fail, I would undoubtedly be required to hook into the City’s system. However, a portion of
my property is reserved from development so that I have space available should my septic fail
and I need a new one. Being required to hook into the City’s system, even if it is more
economical to simply install a new septic system is a very real concern for me. Additionally,
there are other circumstances that may also force us to hook up to the City’s system, like an
addition to our house. This is something my wife and I have been planning and saving for for
several years. To find out that we need to save a quite large additional sum of money to execute
our long planned addition and move it several more years into the future is again a very real
concern for me. To summarize this point bluntly, I do not need City sewer and I do not want City
sewer.
A couple other items discussed during the study session that have stuck with me were first the
opinion that the Council should put blinders on to ignore every aspect of this wastewater
extension request and merely focus on how the City engineering staff performed preliminary
calculations and the City’s wastewater system was determined to be adequate to accept the
expected additional loading from the proposed development. As an engineer myself, I
understand the urge to just go with the numbers and take this very narrow viewpoint, however I
wholeheartedly disagree with it. This wastewater extension request has huge ramifications that
demand the Council to take a much wider viewpoint and consider all the consequences of an
approval to this request. I was somewhat relieved to hear later in the study session that
Bremerton Municipal Code 15.03.040, the code governing this wastewater extension request,
was created to be a mechanism to stop developers from always being able to connect to the
City’s wastewater system. In essence, this code mandates the Council to review the full picture
and circumstances, not merely leave this a rubber stamp process after preliminary calculations
by City engineers. This is where we find ourselves today, with the community helping to provide
opinions and details about this request not from the viewpoint of a developer financially
incentivized to push this request through, but from the viewpoint of the surrounding community
that will be left behind to live with the consequences of any development, should it be
approved.
The last piece of information from the study session that I would like to comment on was the
statement by the City engineers regarding the expectation for the City to generate $250,000 per
year from user fees for the proposed development. City engineers made no mention of any cost
the City will surely incur due to new equipment/systems and increased demand on existing
infrastructure (e.g. increased operation and maintenance costs, the potential to need additional
staffing, any impact this new obligation could have on rate payers within City limits, etc.). This
statement appeared to lack the required information and any proof of thorough consideration to
make such a claim.
As I said earlier, I have lived in the surrounding neighborhood since 2010 and my wife and I
have lived through several phases of life in our house. We started out just the two of us, but
then soon after moving in, we added two dogs to our home. Incrementally, we also added two
children to our family and this community has been a part of their entire lives. I started working
at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in 2006, but in 2014, I moved to a new position with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). To avoid any ethics issues, let me state that what I have written
is my own personal position and does not reflect any FAA policy. I really enjoy my job and I
would like to keep it. The offices for this new position were in Renton at the time, so being faced
with a considerable commute, my wife and I considered moving for the first time. In the end, we
decided our roots ran too deep in our home and community to move, so I found a vanpool and
got used to commuting. My position with the FAA requires frequent travel for extended periods
of time. Knowing my family has a community they can rely on if something adverse should
happen while I am away is a big deal to me. Being part of a small community that watches out
for each other, shovels driveways for each other if we receive snow, checks in if it has been any
abnormal length of time since we have seen each other is a big deal to me. Worrying about my
kids getting hit by one of the 400 new vehicles making one of the 2,000 predicted end trips per
day on streets not designed for this amount of traffic is a big deal to me. This entire community
would be negatively impacted if the development is allowed to be built at the proposed density,
in no small part because a wastewater extension request is approved by the Council. Make no
mistake, a vote in favor of this proposed wastewater extension is a vote in favor of developing
this untouched wilderness area to the maximum extent possible, no matter the consequences
on nature and the surrounding communities.
I think it is fair to say that without an approved wastewater extension request, any development
of the Fisher plat would look much different, specifically the number of homes would need to be
drastically reduced. Not denied entirely, but reduced. So, why is the development proposing
such high housing densities, housing densities much higher than the surrounding communities?
That answer must be based in profit. I understand that profit is not always bad, in some cases
portions of profit can go to funding new research that the world desperately needs. But, this is
not that kind of profit. This profit is the old fashioned kind. The kind where nature and local
communities are irreparably harmed, while a select few individuals reap the rewards. In one
interview the property owners gave in support of a business they own on Bainbridge Island, the
owners stated they split their time between Bainbridge Island and London. So in this case, these
select few individuals reaping the rewards are not even part of the local community. They will
not be faced with any long term negative consequences of this development.
As a dedicated civil servant my whole professional career up to today (and hopefully my entire
career), I can say that I take pride in knowing society gets to benefit from my work. I will never
have millions of dollars available in my budget to buy large properties, but I can live with that. I
also find myself uplifted when I read about emerging evidence showing that current job seekers
are looking into company values to see if they match their own when they are contemplating job
offers or looking where to apply. This can be a strong tool for changing how society operates
and adds new considerations in the profit equation. I do not know any of the Council members
personally, so I can only guess at what your core values may be. Since each of you represent
the community, I can hope that at least some of our core values are similar. I have reviewed the
2023 City Council Goals and Priorities and I certainly see some common ground between our
values. What I do not see is anything supporting a development like this proposal represented
anywhere on that document. This development is definitely not going to support affordable
housing and it will not build what the Council defines as “Missing Middle Housing”. In fact, I
would argue the proposed development directly conflicts with some of the Council’s Goals and
Priorities, specifically developing policies that encourage environmental stewardship as one
example.
In closing, I would like to summarize by saying that there are ample reasons for the Council to
vote against the requested wastewater extension. Bremerton Municipal Code 15.03.040 puts
this decision on the Council, so now we, the impacted community, ask the Council to see the
negative consequences of approving this wastewater extension request far outweigh any
supposed benefits and vote against this proposal.
Blake Hoffer
Published for
October 11
Study Session
ITEM A5 – Public Comments
From: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Fisher Plat Project
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your message. I have copied the City Council to inform them on the community interest
in this matter.
The owners of the Fisher Property have requested wastewater service for the proposed
development. The property is outside City Limits but withing the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area
(UGA) which is a designated wastewater service area. The City’s 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
Update can be found at: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1972/2014-
Wastewater-Comprehensive-Plan-PDF?bidId= this document contains information about the East
Bremerton UGA and the conceptual plans for providing service to this area.
To provide wastewater service to the Fisher Plat, an extension of service would be required to be
designed, installed, and funded by the developer if the City Council agrees to provide service. The
constructed sewer main and pump station would be transferred to the City for operation and
maintenance. The developer has provided a Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis (attached) completed by
Team4 Engineering with a conceptual design for the extension. The proposed system is designed to
include a contributing area beyond the proposed plat boundary so that property owners in the vicinity
could connect to the service if needed in the future.
Attached is a copy of our standard Outside Utility Agreement per your request.
Sincerely,
Janelle Hitch, P.E.
Managing Engineer – Development
Public Works & Utilities – Engineering
(360) 473-5285
Janelle.hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us
From: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 9:46 PM
To: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fwd: Fisher Plat Project
Please see email below.
Blake Hoffer
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:33 PM
Subject: Fisher Plat Project
To: <mark@team4eng.com>, <tim@team4eng.com>
CC: Garrett Jackson <Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Good evening-
I am writing to inquire about the subject development project in Kitsap County. It is my understanding
that the local survey to annex the project property, as well as the surrounding area, into Bremerton
failed to yield the developer’s desired result. Other attempts to force the annexation have also failed, so
now it is up to the Bremerton City Council to subvert the will of the community and potentially provide
utilities to support the development of the property.
Reading through Bremerton Municipal Code 15.03.040, providing utilities in this manner would only be
allowed if the City Council determines it is necessary or appropriate due to the previous failed
annexation efforts. On what grounds is the developer basing the necessity of this utility connection that
would be an exception to general policy per the previously mentioned code? Additionally, per the code,
in order to receive the City of Bremerton utility service, the property owner must execute an Outside
Utility Agreement with the City. Can you please share this agreement? Can you also please share any
plans of feasibility? From my understanding of the developer’s plan, the development will require a
pump station and long connection runs to existing City lines. If the development is not annexed into
Bremerton, who pays to install, operate, and maintain these systems? Furthermore, as a property owner
adjacent to the development area, how am I affected by Bremerton Municipal Code 15.03.050? This
property development plan appears to directly impact my neighbors and me in many negative ways.
Blake Hoffer
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page i 9/12/2023
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
II. Project Location............................................................................................................ 1
III. Proposed Design Flows ................................................................................................ 2
A. Contributing Area ...................................................................................................... 2
B. Proposed Design Flows ............................................................................................. 4
C. Recommended Design Flows .................................................................................... 4
IV. Baseline Data ............................................................................................................... 5
D. Baseline Service Areas and Flows ............................................................................ 6
E. Baseline Flow Data.................................................................................................. 11
Bremerton General Commercial (GC) Zone ....................................................... 11
Existing Dwelling Units ...................................................................................... 12
Baseline Flows 12
F. SSA Model of Baseline Data ................................................................................... 13
Baseline at Minimum Flows ............................................................................... 13
Baseline at Average Flows ................................................................................ 13
Baseline at Maximum Flows .............................................................................. 13
G. Recommended Baseline Flows ............................................................................... 13
V. Force Main Route Alternatives ................................................................................... 13
A. Route 1: NE 30th Street & Perry Avenue ................................................................ 14
B. Route 2: NE Fruitland Street & Perry Avenue ......................................................... 15
C. Route 3: NE Stone Way & Perry Avenue ................................................................ 16
D. Route 4: Cascade Trail & Perry Avenue ................................................................. 17
E. Recommended Force Main Route ........................................................................... 18
VI. Perry Avenue Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis ........................................................ 18
A. Proposed Pumping Station Design Flows at Maxmimum Denisty ............................ 18
B. Baseline Flows at Maxmimum Denisty .................................................................... 18
C. Baseline and Pumping Station Flows at Maxmimum Denisty ................................... 18
VII. Pump Station Sizing ................................................................................................... 19
A. Wet Well .................................................................................................................. 19
B. Electrical Service ..................................................................................................... 19
C. Force Main Pipe Size .............................................................................................. 19
D. Pump Sizing ............................................................................................................ 20
VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 20
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page ii 9/12/2023
Appendicies
Appendix A Pre-Submittal Report BP21 00148
Appendix B City of Bremerton Engineering Department Contributing Area Request
Appendix C Baseline Flow SSA Analysis – Minimum Density
Appendix D Baseline Flow SSA Analysis - Average Density
Appendix E Baseline Flow SSA Analysis - Maximum Density
Appendix F Baseline + Pumping Station Flow SSA Analysis - Maximum Density
Appendix G Force Main Sizing Check
Appendix H Wet Well, Force Main, Pump Sizing, and Pump Curve
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 – Trenton Sewer Basin and Total Contributing Area ................................................ 2
Figure 3 – Contributing Area ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 4 – Perry Ave Sanitary Service Basin NE Riddell Road to E 18th Bypass .................. 5
Figure 5 – MH#2 Zoning ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 – MH#12 Zoning ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 7 – MH#13 Zoning ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8 – MH#14 Zoning ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9 – MH#15 Zoning ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 10 – MH#16 Zoning ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 11 – MH#17 Zoning ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 12 – MH#18 Zoning ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 13 – MH#19 Zoning ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 14 – MH#20 Zoning ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 15 – MH#21 Zoning ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 16 – Bremerton GC Zone Density ............................................................................ 11
Figure 17 – Route 1 – Plan & Profile ................................................................................... 14
Figure 18 – Route 2 – Plan & Profile ................................................................................... 15
Figure 19 – Route 3 – Plan & Profile ................................................................................... 16
Figure 20 – Route 4 – Plan & Profile ................................................................................... 17
Table 1 – Proposed Pumping Station Flows by Area and Density ......................................... 4
Table 2 – Baseline Flows .................................................................................................... 12
Table 3 – Summary of Results ............................................................................................ 18
Table 4 – Force Main Pipe Size .......................................................................................... 19
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 1 9/12/2023
I. INTRODUCTION
As discussed in pre-submittal conference between the property owners and the City of Bremerton
(City), the proposed project is to include an approximately 189 lot subdivision. A summary of the
topics discussed has been recorded in Pre-Submittal Report BP21 00148 (BP148). The full report
is provided in Appendix A.
BP148 states a study and report are required before the City can make a determination about the
sanitary sewer utility availability. As requested in BP148 page 3, this report addresses the
following topics:
Contributing Area
Pump Station Sizing
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Perry Avenue
This report has been prepared to provide the City with the background and information to make
the determination about the sanitary sewer utility availability.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area but has not been
annexed into the City of Bremerton and remains in unincorporated Kitsap County (County). This
area is known as the Enetai neighborhood, just northeast of the city boundary of the City of
Bremerton, overlooking Port Orchard (the water body) to the east, and bounded by the following
streets: Hillside Drive NE, NE 30th Street and NE Enetai Beach Road, see Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 2 9/12/2023
III. PROPOSED DESIGN FLOWS
BP148 defines the contributing area as follows: provide a graphic showing the maximum
contribution area that the pump station will provide service for, including low pressure sewer
systems serving properties to the east and downslope.
A. Contributing Area
The contributing area of the proposed project includes areas served by gravity sanitary
sewer and low-pressure sewer systems. Per the 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
Update (Comp Plan), the project area is within the Trenton Avenue Sewer Basin service
area TRT-1. Per a request from the City of Bremerton Engineering Department (see
Appendix B), the gravity portion of the proposed service area has been requested to also
include the adjacent areas within TRT-2, TRT-3, and TRT-4 that will flow by gravity to the
proposed project Pumping Station location. The low-pressure areas were determined by
estimating the capabilities of E-One individual pumping stations that will generally allow
up to 100 feet of lift with approximately ¼ mile of pressure pipe from the proposed pumping
station. The total area of the contributing area boundary is 105.0 acres. The Trenton
Sewer Basin and contributing area boundary are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Trenton Sewer Basin and Total Contributing Area
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 3 9/12/2023
The final contributing area has been reduced by excluding certain critical areas and
community roads. Steep or un-buildable slopes (generally 30% or greater) were
determined by the Kitsap GIS website and include erosion and landslide hazards. The
critical areas within the contributing area total 54.0 acres. This remaining area has been
further broken down into the current Zoning by Kitsap County, 55.1 acres is within the
Kitsap Urban Restricted Zone (UR) and 33.0 acres are within the Kitsap Urban Low Zone
(UL), see Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Contributing Area
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 4 9/12/2023
B. Proposed Design Flows
The proposed sanitary pumping station will convey wastewater from the proposed
pumping station and the adjacent properties within the contributing area as described in
Section III-A above. For the remainder of this analysis and report, full build-out conditions
have been assumed on all contributing adjacent properties, while the proposed plat
assumes the proposed number of dwelling units. The number of design dwelling units
were then used to calculate average daily flow and peak design flow per the Criteria for
Sewage Works Design, August 2008 (Orange Book). The calculations are based on the
following assumptions: estimated flow of 71 gallons per person per day (gpd/person), an
average of 2.4 people per dwelling unit (DU), and a peaking factor of 4. The calculations
and results have been provided in Table 1 below with the Peak Design Flow at 247 gallons
per minute (gpm).
Table 1 – Proposed Pumping Station Flows by Area and Density
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 5 9/12/2023
IV. BASELINE DATA
Upon request by Team 4 Engineering, City engineering staff provided the Perry Avenue sanitary
sewer service basin from NE Riddell Rd to the East 18th St bypass. Team 4 has expanded this
general service area by further dividing the area by City/County Zoning (see Figure 4 below).
Figure 4 – Perry Ave Sanitary Service Basin NE Riddell Road to E 18 th Bypass
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 6 9/12/2023
Based on the contributing area and dwelling unit density of each zone in the basin, the proposed
design flows have been estimated at the minimum, average, and maximum densities. The
densities were then used to calculate average daily demand, maximum daily demand, and peak
hourly demand. Figures 5 – 16 provide a detailed view of each service area and the receiving
manhole.
C. Baseline Service Areas and Flows
The sewer service basin to MH#2 at NE 30th Street and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5 – MH#2 Zoning
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 7 9/12/2023
The sewer service basin to MH#12 at Sheridan Rd and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6 – MH#12 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#13 located north of NE Fruitland Street and Perry Avenue
and the zone are shown in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7 – MH#13 Zoning
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 8 9/12/2023
The sewer service basin to MH#14 at Sunset Lane and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8 – MH#14 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#15 located north of NE Stone Way and Perry Avenue and
the zone are shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9 – MH#15 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#16 at NE Stone Way and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10 – MH#16 Zoning
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 9 9/12/2023
The sewer service basin to MH#17 located east of Fir Court at Perry Avenue and the zone
are shown in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11 – MH#17 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#18 at Holman Street and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12 – MH#18 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#19 at Parker Place and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 13 below.
Figure 13 – MH#19 Zoning
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 10 9/12/2023
The sewer service basin to MH#20 at Cascade Trail and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 14 below.
Figure 14 – MH#20 Zoning
The sewer service basin to MH#21 at E 18th Street and Perry Avenue and the zone are
shown in Figure 15 below.
Figure 15 – MH#21 Zoning
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 11 9/12/2023
D. Baseline Flow Data
Based on the contributing area and dwelling unit density of each zone in the basin, the
proposed design flows have been estimated at the minimum, average, and maximum
densities. The densities were then used to calculate average daily demand, maximum
daily demand, and peak hourly demand per the Orange Book.
The Department of Ecology approximates Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) via a peaking factor
and a flow value of 100 gallons per day per person. The City of Bremerton states an
average flow value of 71 gallons per day per person from the 2014 Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project has utilized the City of Bremerton’s sewer
flow rate in conjunction with the peaking factor, with the understanding from City staff that
I&I will be drastically reduced in this sewer basin via City cure-in-place-pipe (CIPP)
methods as well as a small number of existing sewer connections upstream of the force
main connection point.
The calculations are based on the following assumptions: estimated flow of 71 gallons per
person per day (gpd/person), an average of 2.4 people per dwelling unit (DU), and a
peaking factor of 4.
Bremerton General Commercial (GC) Zone
The City of Bremerton requires the GC Zone density to be based on the estimated number
of people rather than the number of dwelling units per acre. The narrative below provides
justification to match the Bremerton GC Zone to the County Zoning min/max densities.
The zone includes the Perry Avenue Mall and surrounding area (see Figure 16
below). The zone includes an area of 10.5 acres and currently has 470 parking spaces
surrounding nine single, and one two story building. The buildings are mixed use including
a gas station, grocery store, barber shop, retail, and office space.
Figure 16 – Bremerton GC Zone Density
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 12 9/12/2023
At the Kitsap County GC min density of 10 DU/acre = 252 people (= 10 DU/acre x 10.5
acres x 2.4 people/DU). Assuming 1.6 people per vehicle and a 1/3 full lot, the number of
people would be 251 (= 1.6 x 470 spaces x 1/3 full). At the Kitsap County GC max density
of 30 DU/acre = 756 people (= 30 DU/acre x 10.5 acres x 2.4 people/DU). Assuming 1.6
people per vehicle and a full lot, the number of people would be 752 (= 1.6 x 470 spaces).
Therefore, we have estimated the City GC densities of 10 and 30 DU/acre are reasonable
for the proposed analysis which match the Kitsap County GC densities.
Existing Dwelling Units
The existing dwelling units have been estimated in each zone to gain a general
understanding of the current density in each zone. In each Zone area, as shown in Figures
5 – 15, the dwelling units were counted based on the June 2022 imagery of Google Earth.
Baseline Flows
Using the zone areas, the minimum, average, and maximum densities, and calculations;
the baseline results are a minimum flow of 696 gpm, an average flow of 1,126 gpm, and
a maximum flow of 1,556 gpm. The existing dwelling unit data, at an estimated 596 gpm,
indicates the total baseline area is less than the anticipated flows at minimum density.
The full data has been provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2 – Baseline Flows
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 13 9/12/2023
E. SSA Model of Baseline Data
The minimum, average, and maximum baseline data was input into AutoCAD Storm and
Sanitary Analysis 2021 (SSA) software. This serves as the baseline model to which the
proposed contributing area flows have been added for analysis in Section VI of this report.
Baseline at Minimum Flows
The SSA model at minimum baseline flows does not show any pipes at capacity or any
surcharges within the analyzed system. See Appendix C for the full analysis.
Baseline at Average Flows
The SSA model at maximum baseline flows show the pipes between MH#2 to MH#1A and
MH#1 to MH#12 are at capacity. All other pipes within the system are under capacity.
See Appendix D for the full analysis.
Baseline at Maximum Flows
The SSA model at maximum baseline flows show the pipes between MH#2 to MH#1A and
MH#1 to MH#12 are at capacity. The analysis also shows a slight surcharge of the pipe
between MH#1A to MH#1, which is slightly over the 8-in pipe depth at 0.67 feet. All other
pipes within the system are under capacity. See Appendix E for the full analysis.
F. Recommended Baseline Flows
As shown in Table 2 and described in Section IV-C, the estimated existing flow conditions
for the system are well below the baseline flows at minimum density. Although, for the
remainder of this analysis and report, we recommend using the baseline flow at maximum
density data. This provides a worst-case scenario of the baseline area under current
zones conditions.
V. FORCE MAIN ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
BP148 guided the design team to connect to the City sanitary sewer system along Perry Avenue.
We have laid out four proposed force main routes. The proposed connection points have been
identified as follows:
1. NE 30th Street & Perry Avenue
2. NE Fruitland Street & Perry Avenue
3. NE Stone Way & Perry Avenue
4. Cascade Trail & Perry Avenue
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 14 9/12/2023
A. Route 1: NE 30th Street & Perry Avenue
This proposed force main route will pump sanitary sewage north through the proposed
plat then west along NE 30th Street to Perry Avenue (see Figure 17 below). The existing
sanitary sewer pipe at this location 8-in PVC.
Figure 17 – Route 1 - Plan & Profile
The pros and cons of this route include:
Pros
The route travels through public right of ways.
The total static elevation change is 204 feet.
Cons
The existing sanitary sewer pipe at the proposed connection point 8-in PVC, which
is already at capacity under the maximum baseline scenario.
The route is 4,920 feet long.
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 15 9/12/2023
B. Route 2: NE Fruitland Street & Perry Avenue
This proposed force main route will pump sanitary sewage west through the proposed plat
then west along NE Helm and NE Fruitland Streets to Perry Avenue (see Figure 18 below).
Figure 18 – Route 2 - Plan & Profile
The pros and cons of this route include:
Pros
The existing sanitary sewer pipe at the proposed connection point 12-in concrete.
The route is 3,960 feet long (shortest route).
The route travels through public right of ways.
The total static elevation change is 169 feet (lowest).
The route has adequate capacity at maximum baseline data.
This route is also the proposed watermain route to connect the subdivision to
Trenton Ave.
Cons
N/A
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 16 9/12/2023
C. Route 3: NE Stone Way & Perry Avenue
This proposed force main route will pump sanitary sewage southwest through the
proposed plat then south along NE Enetai Beach Road and west to NE Stone Way and
Perry Avenue (see Figure 19 below).
Figure 19 – Route 3 - Plan & Profile
The pros and cons of this route include:
Pros
The existing sanitary sewer pipe at the proposed connection point 15-in concrete.
The route is 4,320 feet long.
Cons
The route travels through many private parcels.
The route goes through a deep ravine which complicates maintenance.
The total static elevation change is 225 feet.
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 17 9/12/2023
D. Route 4: Cascade Trail & Perry Avenue
This proposed force main route will pump sanitary sewage southwest through the
proposed plat then south along NE Enetai Beach Road and west along Cascade Trail and
Cascade View to Cascade Trail and Perry Avenue (see Figure 20 below).
Figure 20 – Route 4 - Plan & Profile
The pros and cons of this route include:
Pros
The existing sanitary sewer pipe at the proposed connection point 15-in concrete.
Cons
The route is 6,850 feet long.
The route travels through many private parcels.
The route goes through a deep ravine which complicates maintenance.
The total static elevation change is 265 feet.
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 18 9/12/2023
E. Recommended Force Main Route
Based on the pros and cons of each route, Routes 3 and 4 are eliminated for consideration
due to the deep ravine. Routes 1 and 2 are both technically feasible. Comparing Routes
1 and 2, Route 2 is shorter by almost 1000 feet, has a lower static elevation change by 35
feet, and the connection point is into a 12-inch pipe rather than an 8-inch pipe. Both the
length and the static elevation differences combine to require a smaller pump in the
proposed pumping station. Therefore, Route 2 is the recommended alternative and will
be used in the analysis in Section VI below.
VI. PERRY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS
BP148 defines the sewer capacity analysis as follows: the capacity of the Perry Avenue sanitary
sewer main will be analyzed; potential upsizing may be required.
A. Proposed Pumping Station Design Flows at Maximum Denisty
In Section III of this report, the proposed subdivision pumping station design flows were
analyzed. The worst-case baseline flows were recommended to be at maximum density.
B. Baseline Flows at Maximum Denisty
In Section IV of this report, the baseline flows were analyzed. The worst-case baseline
flows were recommended to be at maximum density.
C. Baseline and Pumping Station Flows at Maximum Denisty
Since the pumping station flows at maximum density were added to the baseline system
at MH#13 (per Route #2), the upper section of the baseline analysis remains unchanged.
The SSA model at maximum baseline plus the maximum pumping station flows show all
pipes downstream of the connection point (MH#13 at NE Fruitland St and Perry Avenue)
are under capacity. See Appendix F for the full analysis and a summary of the results is
provided in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Summary of Results
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 19 9/12/2023
VII. PUMP STATION SIZING
BP148 defines the pump station to be sized as follows: the proposed pump station shall be sized
for this contribution area and will dictate sizing for the wet well, force main pipe, and the electrical
service while the pumps can be initially sized for the current development only.
A. Wet Well
The final wet well size is dependent on the peak hourly demand for the contributing area.
In general, based on the largest peak hourly demand (i.e. the maximum density per Table
1) and the recommended force main route (Route 2), the proposed wet well is anticipated
to be approximately 10-feet in depth and 8-foot diameter with a 3.3-foot depth for an
operating volume of approximately 1241 gallons. See Appendix G for the full analysis.
Due to the remote location of this pump station, it is anticipated the final design will be
using a portable engine generator for back up service. Per the Orange Book, this scenario
recommends an overflow capacity of a minimum of one hour at peak flow conditions.
Under the preliminary wet well sizing, 15,000 gallons of overflow storage is recommended.
B. Electrical Service
The required electrical service is anticipated to be 3-phase power.
C. Force Main Pipe Size
The force main pipe size is based on the selected force main route and the peak hourly
demand for the contributing area. Based on the peak design flow (per Table 1), the
recommended Route 2, and the force main pipe size is estimated to be 6-inches in
diameter. See Table 4 below. A minimum flow required to achieve 2 ft/s in the 6-inch
diameter force main is 176 gpm.
Table 4 – Force Main Pipe Size
As a general check of the calculated force main size, we compared the friction losses in
various pipe diameters to estimate the approximate optimal size force main required. At
the peak design flow, recommended Route 2, and nominal pipe sizes; the total head for a
4-inch pipe is 130 ft, a 6-inch pipe is 18 ft, and an 8-inch pipe is 4 ft (see Appendix G). A
higher the dynamic head loss increases the size of the required pump. In this case, a 4-
inch dynamic head loss of 130 ft is very high, a 6-inch of 18 ft is moderate, and 4 ft is very
low. Therefore, a nominal 6-inch force main is appropriately sized.
Enetai - Fisher Plat Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report
Team4 Engineering Page 20 9/12/2023
D. Pump Sizing
The submersible pump is initially sized to meet the proposed development only and the
minimum flow rate to meet a minimum of 2.5 ft/s in the force main pipe. Setting the initial
target parameters at 250 gpm at a duty point of 200 ft of total dynamic head with the static
head at 169 ft, there are four pumps that were selected for further review. Of the four
proposed pumps, we recommend a Flygt 1330S-4X.263.S78.230 30Hp, three phase, 230-
volt pump. The performance duty point of the recommended pump is 250 gpm at 200 ft
of total head at 45.5% efficiency. See Appendix H for the full analysis and pump curve.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Through this report, we conclude that the Perry Avenue baseline area and downstream of MH#13
near NE Fruitland Street and Perry Avenue have the capacity to add the proposed Fisher Plat
subdivision sanitary sewer flows. Therefore, we request a sanitary sewer utility availability letter
from the City.
APPENDIX A
Presubmittal Report – BP21 00148
Page 1 of 4
Department of Community Development
345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337-1873
Telephone: 360-473-5289
Fax: 360-473-5278
_______________________________________________________________________________
PRE-SUBMITTAL REPORT – BP21 00148
Distribution: Mark Kuhlman mark@team4eng.com
John Fisher john@fisherohana.com
It is our understanding that you are proposing the annexation of property located adjacent to
Hillside Drive (parcel # 072402-2-107-2007) in the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area, and
once annexation in completed to subdivide that property. Based on your proposal, the following
is a summary of the major points discussed at the pre-application meeting held Wednesday,
October 6, 2021, and follow up meeting held January 18, 2022.
Land Use:
1. ANNEXATION. The City requires annexation prior to providing an application for
subdivision. The property owner will have to petition the City in order to begin the
annexation process. You should plan an approximate minimum time of six to eight month
to complete annexation. Annexation approval is a City Council decision. To learn more
about annexation, please visit our City webpage:
http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/170/Annexation.
UGA CONNECTING TO CITY SEWER
ANNEXATION REQUEST EXEMPTION
Applicant sends request to join annexation effort to all property owners within the
geographical area identified at the end of this report. Please provide a draft of the proposed
notice to the City for concurrence prior to mailing.
Results feasible to create geographical
area supporting 10% or greater
Result not near 10%
Petition City Council for annexation.
Form attached, at which point staff will
further engage. See attached flowchart.
Proceed with annexation exemption process.
2. ZONING. If annexed, the proposed subdivision would be located in the Low Density
Residential (R-10) zone per BMC 20.60.
3. SUBDIVISION. Subdivisions of 10 or more lots are considered a Formal Subdivision per
BMC 20.12.080(b) and requires a Type III Hearings Examiner decision. Division of land
will be processed per BMC 20.12 and BMC 20.60.065. All survey materials must be
prepared by a qualified professional. Each of the listed permits must be completed in the
following order:
i. Preliminary Formal Subdivision (Type III Hearings Examiner Decision)
ii. Site Development Permit (Type I Administrative Decision)
iii. Final Subdivision (Type I Administrative Decision)
iv. Building Permits for individual homes (Type I Administrative Decision)
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 1 of 8
Presubmittal Report – BP21 00148
Page 2 of 4
4. RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT (RCD). As critical areas are found onsite,
the applicant may want to consider a RCD, which is a specialty type of subdivision
regulated per BMC 20.58.060. By setting aside certain areas for open space, including any
unbuildable critical areas, additional flexibility is provided to the applicant in terms of
setbacks, parking configurations, and townhomes are permitted with RCDs.
5. CRITICAL AREAS.
• CATEGORY I CRITICAL AQUIFER. Per Kitsap County Critical Areas maps, the
site contains critical aquifers. A Hydrogeological Assessment consistent with BMC
20.14.440 is required with the submittal for subdivision.
• GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS. Per Kitsap County Critical Areas maps,
highly geologically hazardous areas exist onsite. Any proposed subdivision would
need to conform to standards found in BMC 20.14.600, including providing a report
from a geotechnical engineer. BMC 20.14.660(h), third-party geotechnical review of
the applicants submitted report may be required to protect public health, safety and
welfare; it is not known at this time if third-party review would be required.
• STREAMS. Per Kitsap County Critical Areas maps, the site contains non-fish bearings
streams. Please coordinate early with the Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife (DFW) to ensure this stream typing is appropriate. It has been common DFW
to change the type of such streams which could increase buffers and effect project
configuration; early coordination could help avoid substantial revisions.
6. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
To contact the Land Use Division call Garrett Jackson
(360) 473-5279, or email Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Building Department:
1. An accessible route shall be provided within the site to and from the sidewalks, public
streets, public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible loading zones and
accessible building entrances. The accessible route shall be provided by means of
walkways, sidewalks and ramps that will comply with A117.1 Accessible and Usable
Buildings and Facilities. The slope and cross slope of the finished elevations of all
walkways, sidewalks, and ramps that are required and intended to be used as part of the
accessible route shall comply with a cross slope of not more than 2% and the slope of a
walkway or ramp shall comply with the standards for accessibility.
To contact the Building Department call Stuart Anderson the main at (360) 473-5270
or email Stuart.Anderson@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Front yard setback 15 feet Development Coverage 60 percent
Side Yard Setback 5 feet Maximum Driveway Width 20 feet
Rear Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum Driveway Width 8 feet
Maximum Height 35 feet Parking 2 spaces per unit
BMC 20.48.060(a) Driveways and areas used for loading, parking and maneuvering motorized vehic les
shall have a paved surface.
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 2 of 8
Presubmittal Report – BP21 00148
Page 3 of 4
Engineering Department:
1. Due to the nature of this project, no Utility Availability Letter was sent to the applicant
and instead a letter describing the required sewer infrastructure improvements necessary to
serve this Project was delivered, followed by a meeting between the City and the
applicant. The proposed pump station location presented was agreed upon.
From this meeting the following items will need to be addressed with further coordination
between the applicant and the City:
a. A graphic showing the maximum contributing area that the pump station will
provide service for, including low pressure sewer systems serving properties to the
east and downslope.
b. Pump station shall be sized for this contribution area and will dictate sizing for the
wet well, force main pipe, and the electrical service while pumps can be sized for
the current development.
c. Perry Ave. sewer main capacity is a concern and will need to be analyzed;
potential upsizing may be required.
2. Project transportation design and aspects should be designed to City of Bremerton
Standards if the plat in Kitsap County will dedicate the roads as public due to the potential
of the City taking ownership of these roads if this area were to annex in the future. The
City is less inclined to accept ownership of roads platted as private within the UGA if this
area is ever annexed. Water design and aspects shall be governed by North Perry Water
District.
3. City of Bremerton will comment on the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis during the
project’s SEPA comment period with Kitsap County permit submittal.
4. Annexation process will be coordinated between the applicant, Public Works & Utilities,
and Department of Community Development.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT – Staff Contact: Robert Endsley, (360) 473-2348 or
Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us or call the main office at (360) 473-5270.
Fire Department:
1. No comments at this time.
To contact the Bremerton Fire Marshal's office: (360) 473-5386 or
Michael.Six@ci.bremerton.wa.us
These comments are based on information provided prior to and at the pre-submittal meeting.
The pre-submittal application conference is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all
potential issues and the discussions shall not be binding or prohibit the enforcement of applicable
laws. If you have any further questions, please contact the individual departments or the
Department of Community Developments main line at (360) 473-5275.
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 3 of 8
Presubmittal Report – BP21 00148
Page 4 of 4
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 4 of 8
Annexation Process – Petition Method
There are eight methods of annexation available for the City of Bremerton to utilize.
The likely method that could be used in the annexation of territory in SKIA would be
the “Petition Method.” This would require a petition of the owners of at least 60 per-
cent of the assessed property value in the area to agree to petition to the city. In brief,
diagrammed below are the steps that would be followed if a petition is submitted from
the property owners for the City’s consideration. Please see the following pages for a
written discussion of the process.
PETITION SUBMITTED
(Only 10% of owners required)
COUNCIL MEETING WITH
PETITIONERS
Reject—Accept—Modify Proposal
ACCEPT/MODIFY?
Initiating party must gather
signatures from 60% of owners
SUBMISSION OF 60%
PETITION
BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
Reviews proposal
REJECT?
No further action
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING
Pass ordinance for effective date of
annexation
PETITION REVIEWED FOR
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY COUNTY
ASSESSOR
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Council passes resolution showing
intent to annex
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 5 of 8
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
November 16, 2021
Attn: FISHER JOHN C & EPP SHAWNA L
6964 WING POINT RD NE
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA, 98110-2986
Re: Fisher Plat – BP21 00148
Mr. Fisher,
The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works & Utilities – Engineering has
reviewed the submittal package for the Fisher Residential Plat for the
presubmittal permit BP21 00148 for the meeting held on October 20, 2021. The
Department has also reviewed the contents of the email from Mark Kulhman
sent on October 25, 2021.
In response to the presubmittal meeting and the email correspondence, City
staff are reluctant to draft a Conditional Utility Availability Letter for the project
for the following reasons:
• There is no close or feasible sewer infrastructure available.
• The current 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (Six year CIP) does
not account for any of the sewer improvements required for the Project as
listed in the City’s 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WWCP). The
2014 WWCP has been attached for reference.
The Developer has the option to explore the route of providing sewer service via
septic systems in accordance with Kitsap Public Health District’s requirements. If
the Developer would like to pursue City sewer service, then the following
improvements and alternatives with estimated dollar amounts are available per
the 2014 WWCP, and will need to be funded and constructed fully by the
Developer:
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 6 of 8
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
Alternative #1
CIP ID# and Description
Infrastructure
Improvements Details
Estimated
Cost with
Prevailing
Wages
NS-5C:
Construct pump station TA-3 at along
low point of NE Enetai Beach Rd. to
convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-1.
Additionally, install force main along NE
Enetai Beach Rd. and Holman St. to
convey flow to Perry Ave.
• 3,300-gallon wet
well with capacity
of 900-gpm at
230-ft TDH
• 3,900-ft of 8-in
force main
$ 6.00
million
NS-5E
Construct gravity sewer from 30th St.
along NE Enetai Beach Rd. to proposed
pump station TA-3 and along Holman St.
from Trenton Ave. to NE Enetai Beach
Rd.
• 4,200-ft of 8-in
gravity sewer
$ 1.63
million
Alternative #2
CIP ID# and Description
Infrastructure
Improvements Details
Estimated
Cost with
Prevailing
Wages
NS-5B (Partial):
Construct pump station TA-2 in the
vicinity of NE Helm St. and Trenton Ave.
to convey sewer flow from sub-basins
TRT-4,5, and 6. Wet well to be sized for
full buildout conditions with pumps sized
for current contribution flows.
Additionally, install force main along
Sheridan Rd. to discharge into Cherry
Ave. Basin in the vicinity of Schley Blvd.
• 5,000-gallon wet
well with capacity
of 1,350-gpm at
210-ft TDH
• 3,900-ft of 10-in
force main
$ 9.48
million
(This
includes
gravity
sewer
costs not
required)
Project-Specific Pump Station
Construct pump station to convey sewer
flow for the proposed development.
Install force main from project pump
station to pump station TA-2.
• Wet well to be
sized for
development
• Force main sized
for development
N/A
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 7 of 8
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
Right-of-way acquisition, obtaining easements for access and utilities, obtaining
permits from the applicable jurisdictions for both permitting and construction shall
be the responsibility of the Developer. All sewer infrastructure shall adhere to the
City of Bremerton Engineering Standards and shall adhere to the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
If you would like to explore this further please feel free to reach out to me for
discussion or to set up a follow up meeting.
Sincerely,
Robert Endsley
City of Bremerton, Engineering Division
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix A: 8 of 8
APPENDIX B
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix B: 1 of 2Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix B: 1 of 2
City Exhibit
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix B: 2 of 2
APPENDIX C
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix C: 1 of 1
APPENDIX D
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix D: 1 of 1
APPENDIX E
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix E: 1 of 1
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
Force Main Sizing Check
Problem:determine the total head loss, system curve, and pump curves
Given:Input Fields in Blue/Highlighted
Assume:maximum flow
Solution:
Head Loss - using Hazen-Williams formula with various flows
HL=(10.44)*L*Q1.85/(Ch
1.85*d4.8655)
LS fittings Equiv. Length of Pipe
4"6"8"
(pump)
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
Check Valve 33.6 50.5 33.3
Gate Valve 2.4 3.5 4.5
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
Tee 20.1 30.3 39.9
Gate Valve 2.4 3.5 4.5
Meter 2.4 3.5 4.5
(force main)
91.2 136.9 146.7
Original
Length of
Pipe =3960
Total L(ft) =4096.9
Input Fields
Upper
Range
of
Output
Table
Static Head
(ft)
L (ft) Q (gpm) Ch Nominal ID
(in)
169 4096.9 250 150 4
6
L= length (ft)8
Q=flow (gpm)
Ch= roughness coefficient
d=pipe inside diameter (in)
1 of 3
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix G: 1 of 3
Force Main Sizing Check
System Curves for various size force mains
Output Fields
Q (gpm)
Dynamic
HL (ft)
Static
HL (ft)
Total HL
(ft)
0 0.00 169 169.00
25 1.83 169 170.83
50 6.59 169 175.59
75 13.96 169 182.96
100 23.77 169 192.77
125 35.92 169 204.92
150 50.33 169 219.33
175 66.94 169 235.94
200 85.70 169 254.70
225 106.56 169 275.56
250 129.50 169 298.50
Nomimal ID (in)4
Output Fields
Q (gpm)
Dynamic
HL (ft)
Static
HL (ft)
Total HL
(ft)
0 0.00 169 169.00
25 0.25 169 169.25
50 0.92 169 169.92
75 1.94 169 170.94
100 3.31 169 172.31
125 5.00 169 174.00
150 7.00 169 176.00
175 9.31 169 178.31
200 11.92 169 180.92
225 14.82 169 183.82
250 18.01 169 187.01
Nominal ID (in)6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300Head (ft)Flow (gpm)
Design System Curve
168
170
172
174
176
178
180
182
184
186
188
0 100 200 300Head (ft)Flow (gpm)
Design System Curve
2 of 3
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix G: 2 of 3
Force Main Sizing Check
Output Fields
Q (gpm)
Dynamic
HL (ft)
Static
HL (ft)
Total HL
(ft)
0 0.00 169 169.00
25 0.06 169 169.06
50 0.23 169 169.23
75 0.48 169 169.48
100 0.82 169 169.82
125 1.23 169 170.23
150 1.73 169 170.73
175 2.30 169 171.30
200 2.94 169 171.94
225 3.66 169 172.66
250 4.44 169 173.44
Nomimal id (in)8
169
169
170
170
171
171
172
172
173
173
174
174
0 100 200 300Head (ft)Flow (gpm)
Design System Curve
3 of 3
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix G: 3 of 3
APPENDIX H
Problem:determine the total head loss, system curve, and pump curves
Given:Input Fields in Blue/Highlighted, Calculated values in Red
Assume:Peak flow
Solution:
Head Loss - using Hazen-Williams formula with various flows
HL=(10.44)*L*Q1.85/(Ch
1.85*d4.8655)
LS fittings Equiv. Length of Pipe*
4"6"8"
(pump)
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
Check Valve 33.6 50.5 33.3
Gate Valve (open)2.4 3.5 4.5
90 Elbow 10.1 15.2 20
Tee 20.1 30.3 39.9
Gate Valve (open)2.4 3.5 4.5
Meter 2.4 3.5 4.5
(force main)
91.2 136.9 146.7
Original Length of Pipe =3960
Total L(ft) =4096.9
* Source =
IPS - Pipe Size OD Size Wall Thickness Pressure / Rating Ave. ID
4" 4.500 0.409 SDR 11, 160 psi 3.682
4" 4.500 0.265 SDR 17, 100 psi 3.970
6" 6.625 0.602 SDR 11, 160 psi 5.421
6" 6.625 0.390 SDR 17, 100 psi 5.845
8" 8.625 0.784 SDR 11, 160 psi 7.057
8" 8.625 0.507 SDR 17, 100 psi 7.611
10" 10.750 0.997 SDR 11, 160 psi 8.756
10" 10.750 0.632 SDR 17, 100 psi 9.486
Input Fields
Upper Range
of Output
Table
Static Head (ft) L (ft) Q (gpm)
Ch id (in)
169 4096.9 400 150 5.421
L= length (ft)6"
Q=flow (gpm)SDR 11, 160 psi
Ch= roughness coefficient
d=pipe inside diameter (in)
Handbook of PVC Pipe Design & Construction
Table 9.1 and Figure 9.2
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 1 of 9
System Curve
Output Fields
Q (gpm) Dynamic HL (ft)Static HL (ft)Total HL (ft)
0 0.00 169 169.00
40 0.99 169 169.99
80 3.58 169 172.58
120 7.59 169 176.59
160 12.92 169 181.92
200 19.53 169 188.53
240 27.36 169 196.36
280 36.39 169 205.39
320 46.59 169 215.59
360 57.93 169 226.93
400 70.39 169 239.39
Pump Curve - Input Data from manufacturers Literature
Pump:Flygt 1330S-4X.263.S78.230
30 Hp three phase, 230 volt
x-axis y-axis Crv 2 x-axis
Q (gpm) Total Head (ft) Q (gpm)
1.0 249.0 2.0
150.0 220.0 300.0
250.0 200.0 500.0
350.0 178.0 700.0
Input Fields
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 100 200 300 400 500
Design System Curve
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 200 400 600 800
Pump Curve
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 2 of 9
System & Pump Curve - Pump Data from manufacturers Literature
Input Fields
Upper Range
of Output
Table
Static Head (ft) L (ft) Q (gpm)
Ch id (in)
169 4096.9 400 150 5.421
Pump:Flygt 1330S-4X.263.S78.230
30 Hp three phase, 230 volt
Pipe:6" SDR 11, 160 psi
Velocity: Note:
Single Pump Optimum Flow 250 gpm Flow needed to maintain
(from above curves)3.0 ft / s
Velocity =3.48 ft / s 216 gpm
Dual Pumps Optimum Flow 325 gpm
(from above curves)
Velocity =4.52 ft / s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Head Loss (ft)Flow (gpm)
System & Pump Curve
System Curve Pump 2 Pump 1
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 3 of 9
Pump Station Sizing Fisher Plat 12-Sep-23
Design Criteria
Septage Flows
Peak Flow 247 gpm
Average Daily Flow 62 gpm
Lift Station
Target Operating Volume
Operating Volume (V) = t x Q / 4 per Orange Book
V = 625 gal
where:
Time Between Starts (t)10 min per City staff
Pump Output Flow (1 pump) (Q)250 gpm
Design Wet Well Sizing
Diameter - I.D.8 ft per City staff
Operating Depth 3.3 ft
Operating Volume 1241 gal exceeds target volume
Pump Data (1 pump)Lead Pump only
Pump Output Flow (1 pump)250 gpm
Pump Run Time
w/o inlet flow 5.0 min
Combined Pump Data (2 pumps)Lead + Lag Pumps
Pump Output Flow 325 gpm
Pump Run Time
w/o inlet flow 3.8 min
Peak Hour Flow Rate Lead Pump only
Peak Flow 247 gpm
Pump Run Time
w/ inlet flows 446.6 min
LS Fill Time 5.02 min
Pump Run Frequency 6.01 runs / hr
Average Daily Flow Rate Lead Pump only
Average Daily Flow 62 gpm
Pump Run Time
w/ inlet flows 6.6 min
LS Fill Time 20.08 min
Pump Frequency 2.40 runs / hr
Two Pumps Running at Peak Flow Rate Lead + Lag Pumps
Peak Flow 247 gpm
Pump Run Time
w/ inlet flows 16.0 min
LS Fill Time 5.02 min
Pump Frequency 2.86 runs / hr
One cycle every 21.0 min
0.35 hr
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 4 of 9
69.0 - 5/15/2023 (Build 33)
Program version Data vers ion
8/23/2023 9:00 A8P8
Us er group(s )
Xylem: USA - EXT
S ubmersible pumps for sewage and surface wa ter within municipal
and commercial building a pplications. Non-clog im pellers a re
desig ned to m aintain reliable performance a t susta ined efficiency .
Head
S78 192mm
65.8%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
[ft]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 [US g.p.m.]
1 3 3 0 S-4 X.2 6 3 .S7 8.2 3 0
192 mm
Numbe r of blade s
2
T echnic a l s pec ifica tion
Wet well k it
C onfigur at ion
4 inch
Impelle r diame te r
192 mm
Disch arge diameter
4 inc h
Moto r numbe r Installation type
K1330.181 25-18-2Z A-W 30hp
Inle t diame te r
Maximum ope rating
spe ed3540 rpm
Mat e rials
Grey cast iron
Stator housing mate rial
Curv es according to:
Pum p inform at ion
Disch arge diameter
Impelle r diame te r
Impelle r
Grey cast iron
W ater, pure [100%],39.2 °F ,62.43 lb/ft³,1.6888E-5 ft²/s
Curv e: ISO 9906
Nomi nal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data shoul d
be expected due to standard manufacturi ng tolerances.
Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees.
0
Xy lect-21129287 9/13/2023Last update
Create d on 9/13/2023
M att RasmussonCreated byProject
Block
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 5 of 9
69.0 - 5/15/2023 (Build 33)
Program version Data vers ion
8/23/2023 9:00 A8P8
Us er group(s )
Xylem: USA - EXT
1 3 3 0 S-4 X.2 6 3 .S7 8.2 3 0
T echnic a l s pec ifica tion
Mot or - Ge ne r al
Freque ncy Rate d voltage
Rate d pow erRated spee d
Rate d current
230 V
30 hp3540 rpm
67 A
3~K1330.181 25-18-2Z A-W 30hp
Phases
Total moment of inertia
1.6 lb ft²
Power factor - 1/1 Load
0.90
0.86
0.78
91.6 %
92.1 %
91.6 %
Moto r numbe r
ATEX approved
60 Hz
Numbe r of pole s
2
Stator variant
9
Insulation class
F
Type of D uty
Mot or - Te chnical
Power factor - 3/4 Load
Power factor - 1/2 Load
Moto r e fficie ncy - 1 /1 Load
Moto r e fficie ncy - 3 /4 Load
Moto r e fficie ncy - 1 /2 Load
Starting curre nt, direct starting
Starting curre nt, star-de lta
585 A
195 A
S 1
Starts per hour max.
15
No
0
Xy lect-21129287 9/13/2023Last update
Create d on 9/13/2023
M att RasmussonCreated byProject
Block
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 6 of 9
69.0 - 5/15/2023 (Build 33)
Program version Data vers ion
8/23/2023 9:00 A8P8
Us er group(s )
Xylem: USA - EXT
1 3 3 0 S-4 X.2 6 3 .S7 8.2 3 0
Performance curve
Dut y point
200 ft250 US g.p.m.
He adFlow
Curv es a ccording to:
Head
Efficiency
Overall Efficiency
Power input P1
Shaft power P2
S78 192mm
65.8%
200 ft
48.3 %
44.2 %
26.2 hp
250 US g.p.m.
28.6 hp
250 US g.p.m.
S78 192mm
200 ft
48.3 %
44.2 %
26.2 hp
250 US g.p.m.
28.6 hp
250 US g.p.m.
S78 192mm
200 ft
48.3 %
44.2 %
26.2 hp
250 US g.p.m.
28.6 hp
250 US g.p.m.
S78 192mm (P2)
200 ft
48.3 %
44.2 %
26.2 hp
250 US g.p.m.
28.6 hp
250 US g.p.m.
S78 192mm (P1)
200 ft
48.3 %
44.2 %
26.2 hp
250 US g.p.m.
28.6 hp
250 US g.p.m.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
[ft]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
[%]
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
[hp]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 [US g.p.m.]
W ater, pure [100%],39.2 °F ,62.43 lb/ft³,1.6888E-5 ft²/s
Curve: ISO 9906Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.
Please consult your local Flygt repres entative for performance guarantees.
0
Xy lect-21129287 9/13/2023Last update
Cre ate d on 9/13/2023
M att RasmussonCreated byProject
Block
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 7 of 9
69.0 - 5/15/2023 (Build 33)
Program version Data vers ion
8/23/2023 9:00 A8P8
Us er group(s )
Xylem: USA - EXT
Pumps /Flow He ad Shaft powe r Flow He ad Shaft powe r Hydr.e ff.Specific NPSHre
Sys te ms Ene rgy
1 250 US g.p.m.200 ft 26.2 hp 250 US g.p.m.200 ft 26.2 hp 48.3 %1420 k Wh/US M G
1 3 3 0 S-4 X.2 6 3 .S7 8.2 3 0
Duty Anal ys i s
Curv es a ccording to:W ater, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F ; 62.43lb/ft³; 1.6888E-5ft²/s
Head
S78 192mm
65.8%
200 f t
250 US g.p.m.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
[f t]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 [US g.p.m.]
O pe r at ing char act e rist ics
Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing toler ances.
Please consult your local Flyg t representative for performance guarantees.
Xy lect-21129287
9/13/2023Last update
Create d on 9/13/2023
M att RasmussonCreated byProject
Block
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 8 of 9
69.0 - 5/15/2023 (Build 33)
Program version Data vers ion
8/23/2023 9:00 A8P8
Us er group(s )
Xylem: USA - EXT
1 3 3 0 S-4 X.2 6 3 .S7 8.2 3 0
Di mens ional dra wi ng
34516Ø4"
Weight Pump Stand
lbs 613 117Outlet center lineRef. line
Scale Date
RevisionDrawing number
S uction
inlet
P ump inlet
P ump outlet
Discharge
outletKP1330SHNon-clog
Wet-well
Ø4"
Ø4"1:20 190827
8179000 3
183
433
8
49
16
153491612582" Guide bars
213
16
77831516913
16
41"
301
8
81
16
811681164151611
16
213
16 41316913
16
3078Z-Z
Z Z
0
Xy lect-21129287
9/13/2023Last updateCreated on 9/13/2023
M att RasmussonCreated byProject
Block
Enetai - Fisher Plat: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix H: 9 of 9
Page 1 of 5
Outside Utilities Agreement
Rev. 09/2021
Return Address: City Clerk
City of Bremerton
345 Sixth Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
AUDITOR/RECORDER’S INDEXING FORM
Document Title(s): 1. Outside Utilities Agreement
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: N/A
Grantor(s): 1.
Additional names on page of document.
Grantee(s): 1. The City of Bremerton
Additional names on page of document.
Legal Description:
(abbreviated)
Additional legal is on page of document.
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number:
Project Name:
OUTSIDE UTILITIES AGREEMENT
WHEREAS the Bremerton Municipal Code requires property outside the city boundaries to
support annexation to the City of Bremerton as a condition for receiving City utilities (BMC
15.02.040 and 15.03.040); and
WHEREAS the City of Bremerton has a primary obligation to its citizens to allocate limited
service resources for adequate growth and development within the City; and
Page 2 of 5
Outside Utilities Agreement
Rev. 09/2021
WHEREAS the undersigned, as owner of a parcel outside the City of Bremerton, has made
application for city utilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned owner (hereinafter "Owner") of real property located
in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, (hereinafter "Property"), legally described as:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
and the City of Bremerton (hereinafter "City"), in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth
herein including the furnishing of utility services by the City of Bremerton, do hereby promise and
agree as follows:
1. Services Provided. City of Bremerton shall provide utility services consistent with
service areas defined by the City comprehensive utility plans as amended, and terms and conditions
of a current Letter of Availability from the Bremerton Utilities Department.
2. Rates and Charges. Owner shall pay when due all connection charges, assessments,
and rates established for city utility services by City ordinance for the Owner's user class.
3. Use. Development of the property described above shall comply with the uses and
development standards of City of Bremerton comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to RCW
35.13.177 and any adopted subdivision and street standards of the City of Bremerton.
4. Utility Improvements.
5. Annexation. Owner, by signing below, grants to the City of Bremerton a Limited
Power of Attorney to include this Agreement as Owner's consent to the annexation of the Property as
part of any Notice of Intent or Petition for Annexation presented to the City of Bremerton.
The annexation petition supported by this Power may include proportional assumption of the
City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. The petition shall require the concurrent adoption of
land uses designated in any urban fringe comprehensive plan approved for the annexation area
pursuant to RCW 35.13.177, or if none has been adopted, the land uses for annexed property as set
forth in the Bremerton Zoning Code as amended.
This Power of Attorney is nonrevocable.
Page 3 of 5
Outside Utilities Agreement
Rev. 09/2021
6. Enforcement. Violation of this Agreement may result in the immediate termination
of utility services to the above-described property as well as other remedies provided by law.
7. Covenants. The undersigned further agrees that this Agreement and the promise made
herein constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned and his
heirs, successors, and assigns, and that this Agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the
Kitsap County Auditor.
OWNER(S):
DATED: BY:
Owner
BY:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
On this day, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
personally appeared ____________________________________________________, to me known
to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _____ day of _____________________,
20_____.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at:
My appointment expires:
Page 4 of 5
Outside Utilities Agreement
Rev. 09/2021
CITY OF BREMERTON
DATED: BY:
Greg Wheeler, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
Thomas Knuckey
Director of Public Works and Utilities
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kylie J. Finnell, Bremerton City Attorney
Angela Hoover, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Outside Utilities Agreement Rev. 09 2021.docx
Page 5 of 5
Outside Utilities Agreement
Rev. 09/2021
EXHIBIT A
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:41 PM
To: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Fischer property sewer proposal
Hello(again),
Reading through your email I would also like clarification on your statement that reads, “if the city
decides annexation is not feasible”…….
The community has already been polled and rejected the idea of annexation. It’s not that this is “not
feasible”, it’s more than the community has overwhelmingly rejected the idea already so saying it’s “not
feasible”, is incorrect. The developer is trying to use a municipal code exception because annexation is
not an option.
Also, you said “rates will be adjusted” to pay for the cost and maintenance of this new system. By
“adjusted” do you mean “increased” for City of Bremerton residents?? So COB residents will have to pay
higher rates to cover maintenance costs for a system that doesn’t even serve COB property??!! You
stated the extension is also for the “benefit” of surrounding areas…How would this benefit any of us if
we were forced to pay into sewer because of septic failure, home renovations, etc. I doubt anyone has
large amounts of extra funding laying around for tapping into city sewer.
Hoping for clarification on these questions and the questions I emailed earlier today. Thank you.
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:30 PM Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote:
Ms. Palama-Hoffer,
Please see my responses below in red. I have copied the City Council to inform them on the community
interest in this matter.
Thanks,
Janelle Hitch, P.E.
Managing Engineer – Development
Public Works & Utilities – Engineering
(360) 473-5285
Janelle.hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:16 AM
To: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Fischer property sewer proposal
I realized after I sent my original email, my email chose to not populate the first portion of my email so I
will re-write it below. Feel free to disregard the original email I sent. Thanks so much!
Hello Janelle,
Kathie Lustig has been informing me of all of the communications she has received from you but I
would love clarification on a few more things regarding this proposal for sewer in a non annexed/ non
city maintained part of Bremerton.
1. If the city will be responsible to own and maintain this system, including pump stations and the
additional impact to the wastewater treatment plant, will this essentially fall all on the backs of
the City of Bremerton rate payers? If so, are they aware of this development attempting to get
sewer put in? The non-annexed folks using this system have to pay 50% more then City rate
payers...but where is the cost breakdown to show that this 50% surcharge is enough to cover
the costs and long term maintenance of this massive extension, pump stations, etc? I find it
troubling that as a neighborhood we have not seen any documentation regarding feasibility. Will
families paying the city tax be informed of this project?
The City will own the sewer main, sewer laterals and pump station that are proposed. Rate
studies are completed regularly and rates are adjusted to ensure adequate funding for
operation and maintenance of facilities. The rate studies evaluate the general facility charges
(GFCs) for connections to the wastewater system as well as ongoing service fees. The
Comprehensive Plans that the City utilizes are the initial documentation regarding
feasibility. The City did establish in the feasibility of serving the East Bremerton UGA in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. How will the wet well, pumps, and overflow storage be accessed and maintained by the City. It
appears the location is in a critical area. What size will the vault be for overflow storage. In the
event of an overflow beyond the storage, how will downstream neighboring properties and the
associated downstream critical areas be impacted?
If the City Council agrees that annexation is not feasible, the location of the pump station will be
evaluated as the design progresses. The City will require an accessible pump station and sewer
main within City or County ROW or easements. Assessment of critical areas would be under the
jurisdiction of Kitsap County. To ensure adequate capacity, systems are designed with
redundancy of infrastructure. In addition, emergency power is required at all pump stations.
3. What is the annual and lifetime cost for the City of Bremerton to own, operate, and maintain
this system, whose sole purpose is to serve a single, non-annexed residential development?
How will actual City tax payers have to bear the cost for properties that aren’t paying taxes into
the City? Local City residents should in no way have to bear this cost for non-annexed property
or for a development outside of city limits. It seems the ordinance they are referring to reads as
if this is for a singular home hoping to access sewer lines already in place. Not a subdivision
seeking new piping.
These costs are not readily available. There are no anticipated costs to other tax payers with the
extension of systems through development. As was indicated above the developer pays for
design and construction of the proposed facilities. The city evaluates and adjusts the GFCs and
service fees regularly to cover the costs of operation and maintenance. The proposed system is
being designed to accommodate not only the proposed subdivision but also surrounding area
taking into account the larger plan of serving the entire East Bremerton UGA. The City will
require any new system that is built to meet current design standard.
4. How does this sewer extension benefit the City? Why hasn’t the developer explored septic and
reduced the number of lots to achieve minimum density? Extending sewer to a non-annexed
development appears to be the last solution after all others have been explored and their report
is not reading that way considering it was written so recently by the same firm that is working
with the developer to get this subdivision built.
UGAs are intended to support urban growth and density and require systems to support
that. Extension of sewer support the UGA growth. The City has taken into account the zoning of
the UGA when anticipating the capacity of the proposed system. An assessment of capacity for
the City’s entire system, both existing and yet unserved areas is completed with each
Comprehensive Plan.
5. If accessing sewer was not feasible in 2021 per the documentation supplied to Kathie, why is the
city even entertaining this idea for the developer. If anything, the pricing he was given for the 2
other options has certainly inflated.
Please clarify your question.
As I am sure you know, we are on a massive time crunch so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
2753 hillside dr ne
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:20 PM Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathie Lustig has been informing me of all of the communications she has received from you but I
would love clarification on a few more things regarding this proposal for sewer in a non annexed/ non
city maintained part of Bremerton.
1. If the city will be responsible to own and maintain this system, including pump stations and the
additional impact to the wastewater treatment plant, will this essentially fall all on the backs of the City
of Bremerton rate payers? If so, are they aware of this development attempting to get sewer put in? The
non-annexed folks using this system have to pay 50% more then City rate payers...but where is the cost
breakdown to show that this 50% surcharge is enough to cover the costs and long term maintenance of
this massive extension, pump stations, etc? I find it troubling that as a neighborhood we have not seen
any documentation regarding feasibility. Will families paying the city tax be informed of this project?
2. How will the wet well, pumps, and overflow storage be accessed and maintained by the City.
It appears the location is in a critical area. What size will the vault be for overflow storage. In the
event of an overflow beyond the storage, how will downstream neighboring properties and the
associated downstream critical areas be impacted?
3. What is the annual and lifetime cost for the City of Bremerton to own, operate, and maintain
this system, whose sole purpose is to serve a single, non-annexed residential development?
How will actual City tax payers have to bear the cost for properties that aren’t paying taxes into
the City? Local City residents should in no way have to bear this cost for non-annexed property
or for a development outside of city limits. It seems the ordinance they are referring to reads as
if this is for a singular home hoping to access sewer lines already in place. Not a subdivision
seeking new piping.
3. How does this sewer extension benefit the City? Why hasn’t the developer explored septic
and reduced the number of lots to achieve minimum density? Extending sewer to a non-
annexed development appears to be the last solution after all others have been explored and
their report is not reading that way considering it was written so recently by the same firm that is
working with the developer to get this subdivision built.
4. If accessing sewer was not feasible in 2021 per the documentation supplied to Kathie, why is
the city even entertaining this idea for the developer. If anything, the pricing he was given for the
2 other options has certainly inflated.
As I am sure you know, we are on a massive time crunch so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated
Sarah Palama-Hoffer
2753 hillside dr ne
From: kathie.lustig@icloud.com <kathie.lustig@icloud.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 1:50 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: KWalters@kitsap.gov; APresson@kitsap.gov
Subject: Public Comment: Extension of Sewer to Fisher Plat in UGB 10/11 and 10/18
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I am contacting you about the Developer’s Request to Extend City Sewer outside the sitting of
Bremerton but within the UGB (urban growth boundary) that you will be discussing at a study session on
October 11th. I have read the published packet and pages 154-164 (A-5) generated by the Bremerton
Public Works & Development Department
My name is Kathie Lustig and I am a resident of Kitsap County residing in the area of Rozewood Estates
accessed via Trenton Ave. I have been active in our neighborhood as a community organizer around
issues related to opening up ROW at the end of our subdivision, as well as brought to light the
misleading annexation attempt made by Team4Engineering for their client and developer, Mark Fisher.
See attached letter that went out to a select group of residents about annexation in March 2022. This
language was approval by the City planning department. The letter failed to disclose the true purpose
of the inquiry, which was their client to get his property annexed to the City so he could get sewer
hookup to maximize density and profits for his proposed subdivision of 200+ houses.
The City’s Public Works Department Memo dated Sept 15th to City Council fails to accurately represent
the significant public outcry that occurred when this annexation attempt occurred when residents found
the real purpose behind the annexation attempt. It was overwhelmingly rejected my residents by
approximately 99.9%. The annexation attempt failed. The memo lists ONE person under public
comments and misrepresents the shear number of people opposed to this.
Team4Engineering then moved towards circumventing the will of the people by submitting a pre-
submittal permit BP21 00148 requesting a Conditional Utility Availability. The City issued a letter dated
November 16, 2021 (see attached) that determined there is "no close or feasible sewer infrastructure
available.” Options were given to pursue city sewer at the sole cost of the developer. The developers
analysis appears to have rejected those options and chose their own. Those options are before the City
Council to review. Keep in mind, the cost to developer to construct a sewer line, will not just be the
developers burden. It will be passed on to residents whom will be forced to hookup to it when our
septics failed and ultimately residents of the City of Bremerton. Their preference to use Helm/Fruitland
from Perry Avenue to bring sewer to their proposed development does not consider, among other
things, the critical habitat of Enetai Creek that State Fish & Wildlife lists as having salmon that would be
dug up and disturbed by the proposed sewer line. These environmental impacts should be a
consideration by the City Council BEFORE it approves sewer hookup.
Albeit the County DCD would review other permitting related to this potential development, the City
Council cannot turn a blind eye to Critical Areas and animal habitat on this parcel. Development of this
parcel at such high density will have devastating impact to wildlife and all the residents surrounding it.
The traffic alone will overwhelm our neighborhoods due to its location that is at a dead end. This is not
an appropriate location for a high density subdivision of this type that sits at a dead end. The developer
intends to discharge run off from the developemnt into the Puget Sound waters. It is well known the
area consists of significant geological hazards and prone to soil instability. Recent earthquake research
data put a fault line just to the north in Illahee that shows the location at extreme risk of slide and
upheaval. It simply is not safe to have so many homes on such unstable ground and discharge run off in
such a manner.
Washington State mandates how annexation is handled to protect the rights of the citizens and to
keep it a democratic one (RCW Ch. 35.13). Information about what has transpired between
Team4Engineering, the developer Mark Fisher and the Department of Public Works, Utilities and
Engineering has been held behind a veil of secrecy to the public and particularly from the residents
whom are impacted by the City agreeing to allow a wastewater utility service. My attempts to
communicate to city council members about this matter have been ignored. The public has not been
allowed to have any input into this process and it appears that “City Council may, in it’s sole and
absolute discretion, provide wastewater utility services to properties outside the city limits if certain
conditions are met.” "Certain conditions' don't appear to include public comment or opinion.
The public has been given 7-days notice of this review and decision making by the City Council. Is the
City Council going to protect the rights of its citizens or use its sole authority and absolute discretion to
circumvent the will and the rights of the people for one developer? We at a minimum should be allowed
to have more input and time to review the developers sewer analysis. I sincerely hope the City Council
will give this thorough review and take into consideration that no resident in the surrounding
neighborhood wants this. To ignore our opinions, and move forward with an approval is not what I call a
democratic process and certainly will not be protecting the rights to all of its citizens.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider my thoughts and opinions, many that are shared by the
overwhelming majority of residents around me. The entire Rozewood Estates neighborhood, as well as
the subdivision to the north of 30th adjacent are against this. Many down at Enetai Beach community
oppose it as well. I implore the City Council to deny this request for utility hookup. The request is
premature and should not be considered until all SEPA review is done related to proposed sewer line(s)
options.
Sincerely,
Kathie Lustig
Community Organizer
2811 Rozewood Drive
From: Garrett Jackson <Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: City of Bremerton, Pending Enetai Utility Service Request
Date: October 3, 2023 at 4:57:19 PM PDT
To: Garrett Jackson <Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, City Council
<City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>,
Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, Ned Lever
<Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Interested Citizen - I’m sending you this message because you have shared your contact information
with me as an interested party related to annexation and extension of utilities in the Enetai area and
there is a pending action that you may be interested in knowing more about. Please see the information
below
BACKGROUND: In 2022 a property owner in the Enetai area spoke with staff at the City of Bremerton
regarding the potential to either annex their property into the City or the potential to connect to the city
sewer without annexation. Enetai is located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA), and with this
designation it is anticipated that the area will annex to the City at some point in time. In addition to the
area being within Bremerton’s UGA, Enetai is also in the City’s sewer service area. It is the general policy
of the City of Bremerton that properties located outside the City limits annex into the City before sewer
utility services are extended outside of City limits. However, the City’s adopted policies allow the City
Council to review proposals for extension of sewer without annexation if it is infeasible to annex.
ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY: The property owner in Enetai engaged in a public outreach process in the
Spring of 2022 (?) to determine if neighboring properties were interested in joining them in annexation,
and during that process they were unable to gain enough support to make annexation feasible. Having
shown that no other individuals wanted to join their annexation bid, the property owner is now seeking
to obtain sewer service from the City without annexation and is following the process outlined in the
City’s regulations under Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC 15.03.040(b)).
SEWER EXTENSION WITHOUT ANNEXATION: Following the demonstration that annexation is infeasible
a property owner can obtain sewer service if it can be demonstrated that providing sewer service to the
properties is technically possible and the City Council agrees to approve the extension without
annexation. Since the Spring of 2022 the property owner and the City Engineering Division have been
analyzing whether providing sewer service to their property was feasible, and it has been determined
that it is possible to provide sewer service to their property. The property owner has now submitted
a formal request to the Bremerton City Council to approve extension of sewer service without
annexation, and the City Council will soon be reviewing the applicant’s request.
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL PROCESS & DECISION: The City Council is expected to discuss the proposed
extension of utilities without annexation at a Study Session next Wednesday October 11th , with a formal
decision potentially anticipated at the regular City Council meeting on Wednesday October 18th . Please
note that all Council meetings are open to the public and conducted in a hybrid format that allows
attendees to participate either in-person or by zoom. The Council study sessions (in this case October
11) are for the Council to receive information from staff regarding proposals. At study sessions there are
no decisions made by the Council and there is also not an opportunity for public comment. The City
Council will be encouraging public comments at their October 18th regular meeting regarding this
request for extension of sewer service.
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION & CONTACT: The City Council staff updates the
Council webpage with all meeting information, please see their webpage here for
updates::https://meetings.municode.com/PublishPage/index?cid=BREM&ppid=d33416d7-25d1-44e6-
9d32-55b97fa53824&p=-1 . The meeting packets are typically first published the Friday before the
meetings, so check that link to obtain the meeting packet information. If you would like to provide
public comment to the City Council please use the following email City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us .
BREMERTON ENGINEERING CONTACT: If you have questions about proposed sewer service, please
contact Manager of Development Engineering Janelle Hitch, 360-473-
5285, Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us.
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING - KITSAP COUNTY DCD: Please note, the proposal before the Bremerton
City Council is limited to a sewer extension request. The City of Bremerton is not the permitting
authority for this potential development, it is within the jurisdiction of Kitsap County. If you have
questions about the development application status you can contact Kitsap County Community
Development at: 360-337-5777, email help@kitsap1.com.
Garrett Jackson
Planning Manager
(360) 473 - 5289
Mailing Address: 345 6th Street, Suite 100
Physical Address: 345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
November 16, 2021
Attn: FISHER JOHN C & EPP SHAWNA L
6964 WING POINT RD NE
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA, 98110-2986
Re: Fisher Plat – BP21 00148
Mr. Fisher,
The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works & Utilities – Engineering has
reviewed the submittal package for the Fisher Residential Plat for the
presubmittal permit BP21 00148 for the meeting held on October 20, 2021. The
Department has also reviewed the contents of the email from Mark Kulhman
sent on October 25, 2021.
In response to the presubmittal meeting and the email correspondence, City
staff are reluctant to draft a Conditional Utility Availability Letter for the project
for the following reasons:
• There is no close or feasible sewer infrastructure available.
• The current 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (Six year CIP) does
not account for any of the sewer improvements required for the Project as
listed in the City’s 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WWCP). The
2014 WWCP has been attached for reference.
The Developer has the option to explore the route of providing sewer service via
septic systems in accordance with Kitsap Public Health District’s requirements. If
the Developer would like to pursue City sewer service, then the following
improvements and alternatives with estimated dollar amounts are available per
the 2014 WWCP, and will need to be funded and constructed fully by the
Developer:
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
Alternative #1
CIP ID# and Description
Infrastructure
Improvements Details
Estimated
Cost with
Prevailing
Wages
NS-5C:
Construct pump station TA-3 at along
low point of NE Enetai Beach Rd. to
convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-1.
Additionally, install force main along NE
Enetai Beach Rd. and Holman St. to
convey flow to Perry Ave.
• 3,300-gallon wet
well with capacity
of 900-gpm at
230-ft TDH
• 3,900-ft of 8-in
force main
$ 6.00
million
NS-5E
Construct gravity sewer from 30th St.
along NE Enetai Beach Rd. to proposed
pump station TA-3 and along Holman St.
from Trenton Ave. to NE Enetai Beach
Rd.
• 4,200-ft of 8-in
gravity sewer
$ 1.63
million
Alternative #2
CIP ID# and Description
Infrastructure
Improvements Details
Estimated
Cost with
Prevailing
Wages
NS-5B (Partial):
Construct pump station TA-2 in the
vicinity of NE Helm St. and Trenton Ave.
to convey sewer flow from sub-basins
TRT-4,5, and 6. Wet well to be sized for
full buildout conditions with pumps sized
for current contribution flows.
Additionally, install force main along
Sheridan Rd. to discharge into Cherry
Ave. Basin in the vicinity of Schley Blvd.
• 5,000-gallon wet
well with capacity
of 1,350-gpm at
210-ft TDH
• 3,900-ft of 10-in
force main
$ 9.48
million
(This
includes
gravity
sewer
costs not
required)
Project-Specific Pump Station
Construct pump station to convey sewer
flow for the proposed development.
Install force main from project pump
station to pump station TA-2.
• Wet well to be
sized for
development
• Force main sized
for development
N/A
________________________________________________________________________________
Public Works & Utilities │ 345 6th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-5398
Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city!
Right-of-way acquisition, obtaining easements for access and utilities, obtaining
permits from the applicable jurisdictions for both permitting and construction shall
be the responsibility of the Developer. All sewer infrastructure shall adhere to the
City of Bremerton Engineering Standards and shall adhere to the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
If you would like to explore this further please feel free to reach out to me for
discussion or to set up a follow up meeting.
Sincerely,
Robert Endsley
City of Bremerton, Engineering Division
Robert Endsley
Digitally signed by Robert Endsley
DN: C=US,
E=Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us,
O=City of Bremerton, OU=Public Works &
Utilities, CN=Robert Endsley
Date: 2021.11.16 10:47:34-08'00'
From: Meredith Sobolesky <meredithsobolesky@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:57 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Concerns for Sewer Extension Request
Mr. Jeff Coughlin,
I am a resident of the Manette area and it was recently brought to my attention that the city council will
be reviewing a service request for sewer hookup by Mark Fisher in regards to his proposed 200+
subdivision development. I had a few concerns as a city resident to allow a non city development use
and access to city utilities.
1. What are the environmental impacts of a proposed sewer extension of this magnitude to areas such
as Enetai Creek?
2. If such a connection would be approved, who would own the sewer line installed by the developer?
3. Who would maintain the portion of the sewer line including the pump stations required?
4. How would impacts to the current City of Bremerton wastewater treatment plant be impacted by
allowing such a utility hookup?
5. What information was used determining the feasibility of providing the sewer service to the property?
6. How will this impact current City of Bremerton residents in the future for taxes funds, and staff
required to maintain non annexed properties?
Thank you for representing Manette.
Sincerely,
Meredith Sobolesky
From: John & Kathy Park <jkpark506@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:44 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Please listen to those most impacted
I will start by saying I was born in Bremerton in
the mid 40s and have lived here my whole life. My
family home was off Trenton Avenue and now I live
in NW E Bremerton.
I have heard about this possible development and
I have a friend who lives off Keel on the edge of
this property.
When several homes were built in the early 2000s
at the end of Keel off Hillside Drive the water run
off issues negatively impacted homes on the N side
of Keel. I can see more issues should this acreage
be allowed to move forward.
These small residential streets weren't meant for
lots of traffic.
The impact on wildlife will be devastating. "We"
are taking down their homes and pushing them
into neighborhoods because there is no place for
them to go.
I have driven up 30th and looked at the property.
So many trees would be lost.
There would have to be so much fill in areas to
make it even accessible let alone viable for building
homes.
PLEASE - look at this proposal and the property
involved and think of the residents around
it. There are other properties better suited for this
type of development.
Thank you for your time.
From: Robin Smith <moet2@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:27 PM
To: KWalters@kitsap.gov
Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Proposed Fisher Development
Hello- My message is regarding developer John Fisher and his
pursuit of putting 200 homes on 50 acres of forested land
bordering 30th Ave, east of Trenton, the east border of Rozewood
Estates and the community of Enetai Beach. My home and property
are adjacent to the Fisher acreage.I consider myself a steward
of my property. I feel that at present there is an abundance of
housing being built in this county.The parcel in question here
is home to a significant amount of wildlife. I see deer, eagles,
hawks daily from my house. In March of 2022, I received a letter
about annexing into the City of Bremerton sent out by Mr
Fisher's engineers (Team4Engineers).I feel that this letter was
not transparent regarding their true goal. Regardless, they
didn't break any laws and I believe that this is, in general,
how large developers conduct themselves. I do realize that money
talks and the government runs on tax dollars. My hope is that
our Kitsap County government values our ever shrinking forested
habitat and sees fit to not let every square inch of it be
destroyed.This isn't a case of "not in my backyard". My backyard
just happens to be an important part of the habitat and
ecosystem that makes Kitsap County and Washington State one of
the most wonderful places in the world.
Sincerely- Robin Smith
From: Carly Rhaburn <carly@gracepointkitsap.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:40 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Enetai
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Carly Rhaburn and I am the Children's Ministry Director of GracePoint Church in Bremerton,
WA. I've lived here almost my entire life--32 years now. My father is a retired homicide detective from
the Kitsap County Sheriff's Department. I've lived here long enough to see scores of trees that
majestically lined our landscape cut down to build walmarts, starbucks', what it seems like a billion
walgreens...
������ The last 15, I've resided in Enetai off of 30th across from a beautiful parcel of cherished
forest-land of old-growth trees that houses an incredible amount of wildlife, as it's a destination for deer
coming from the Illahee Preserve.
A developer from Bainbridge Island is pushing to squeeze 200 houses into this small piece of land by
circumventing the wishes of everyone who lives around it, and the many people who enjoy walking this
very loved block.
I have 3 small children and the more traffic coming through this road is already worrisome, and now this
would completely change the landscape and safety of where we live.
Someone once told me "class" was when you know when to say "no" to something; the wisdom to know
when to preserve and when to pursue, whether it comes to fashion, architecture, or any decision, really.
When will Bremerton have the class to say enough is enough, and preserve the beauty we have?
This just makes me so sad and I wish that there could be a willingness to discuss the cons to this, and
make sure this is the right thing to do.
I'm sure the people wanting to build this a) wouldn't want to live there themselves b) wouldn't want
someone cutting down a forest of trees to build 200 tiny cookie cutter homes across from where they
live c) be forced to hookup to sewer if they don't want to
�������
My neighbors and I just don't know what to do to have our voices heard.
Thanks for your time.
Carly Rhaburn
Carly@gracepointkitsap.com
360-550-5652
From: Anita <poodlegirl1961@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:40 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher Development bordering E. 30th East Bremerton
Please DO NOT permit this development.
Access roads cannot support this development.
With 200 additional homes (with 2-car garages, and on-street parking) there will be at a minimum 400
additional vehicles traveling E. 30th street (Main entrance of development) on a daily basis. There are no
bike lanes or sidewalks to support this development on any of the roads servicing this development, and
all roads are just 2-lane roads – one lane each direction. E. 30th has a steep incline to the immediate
west of the entrance of this proposed development which also limits visibility – so another safety
concern when accessing the proposed site.
The nearest Kitsap Transit bus stop (serviced only on weekdays – 3 times a day to Bremerton
Transportation Center, 6 times a day to Wheaton Way Transit Center) is located approximately 1 mile
away.
Unless the Developer (Fisher) is willing to upgrade the public road system for vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic to support this additional burden please do not allow this development.
Also, forcing the public to purchase a sewer hookup (if needed) from a private entity (Fisher) does not
appear to be within the scope of the city’s comprehensive plan
Please do not push this decision off on Kitsap County to correct your error AFTER you greenlight this
project. This would be a waste of taxpayer time and dollars as county residents will not support this
action.
Signed,
Anita Banks, Impacted Resident of Kitsap County
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Judy McDonald <judymc90@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:29 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fwd: Fisher Plat service extension
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Judy McDonald <judymc90@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Fisher Plat service extension
To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa>
Dear City Council members,
Please consider the uniqueness of the Fisher Plat property that will be destroyed by approving the
extension of wastewater service. This area has deep ravines, old growth trees, Enetai Creek and its own
population of wild life.
Don’t look at this strictly from a financial position but instead consider the loss of this natural asset to
the community. Please visit the property yourself to see how approval the proposed extension will
impact both people and animals. Vote for keeping this area natural versus having it become another
housing development.
Sincerely,
Judy McDonald
Manette
From: Larry Beal <beallarry@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:08 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Sewer Line Extension
Dear Bremerton City Council,
We are very concerned about a proposal by a developer to extend city sewer up to a parcel
directly across the street from our home on the corner of NE 30th and Hillside Drive. My
understanding is that the purpose of the request before the City Council will allow for the
developer to ultimately seek to build 200 homes on the acreage of untouched heavily wooded
land that we view daily from the front window of our home.
Please don’t approve the request from the developer to put in a city connected sewer system.
The developer would then be able to create high-density housing which would negatively affect
the traffic in
our rural area.
Please consider your decisions carefully and consciously as they have severe ramifications
further down the development line.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jill and Larry Beal
Homeowners of 40 Years at 3048 NE 30th Street
From: Tamma Farra <trfarra@colorsonsilk.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 8:18 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Proposed grant to extend sewer service to development
City Council Members,
I was alarmed to read the editorial in this mornings paper by Katy Lus�g regarding the development of a
50 acre parcel just south of Illahee State Park.
The points she made were well taken.
The public did not want this annexa�on.
As it seems to me, the developer and perhaps the City Council are set to bypass public opinion on this as
they meet today to talk about allowing sewer extension.
Please allow more �me and include the public before this decision is made.
Tamma Farra
District 3
trfarra@colorsonsilk.com
From: leenrach@juno.com <leenrach@juno.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:04 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: rachnlee@juno.com
Subject: Fisher Development East Bremerton
City Council Members,
I want to express my opposi�on to the 200 home development being planned for East Bremerton in the
area south of 30th street. I live on Viewcrest Drive.
1) The area in on a steep slope that has a history of sliding.
2) 200 homes is too dense of a development for the neighborhood, the roads cant support the traffic.
3) I don't want to be forced, now or in the future, to to hook up to public sewer. I just installed a new
sep�c system at great expense.
Lee Parsons
From: Rebecca Chappell <rebellen22@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:19 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: kathie.lustig@icloud.com
Subject: Proposed subdivision off 30th in Bremerton
I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of the 50 acres off of 30th in
Bremerton. It appears that the city is more influenced by deep pockets than by the citizens they
represent. I feel that this subdivision does not follow the same requirements that the homeowners in
this area have to meet to build. This development seems like a case of a big builder buying their way
around the codes. They are being given a green light despite the opposition of and impact on the
existing neighborhood. The proposed density is much higher than the surrounding neighborhoods. This
new subdivision will completely destroy an untouched forest. Has there been studies done on the
effects of removing all the trees on runoff and erosion? Has the city reviewed the plans for this
development to determine if they fit, or if they will just be an eyesore and damaging to the surrounding
neighborhood? What is been done to mitigate the impact of increased traffic? This development is not a
good fit for this area!
--
Sincerely, Rebecca
From: Roberta Steen <bellagranny4@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:47 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject:
No way should we allow more developers to circumvent what is the best for the neighborhood over
the reach of the hunt for mighty dollar we have too many developers wanting to put more high density
apts an houses in neighborhoods that ruin the reason we settled in those areas I for one will fight it if it
gets any worse in my neighborhood
From: Judy McDonald <judymc90@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:45 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher parcel Wildlife examples
This property is a sanctuary to many deer as well other wildlife that make this their home. Where will
they go if Bremerton assists the owner to profit from its destruction?
Judy McDonald
From: Felicienne Griffin <feliciennegriffin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 5:28 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3367
I am unable to make the public hearing tonight due to illness, so I am writing in opposition to the
sewer extension to the Fisher plot. There are numerous reasons why but I wanted to address
something that the City discussed during the study session last week. A statement was made by
two people that it is not up to the city to consider what the county does, it is the city's job to approve
or disapprove the sewer connection only. I would like to point out to the council member and public
works department that this goes against your guidance.
Let me point out the Vision 2050; A plan for how and where we grow. You use this to develop the
city's comprehensive plan, and guarantees you work closely with the county and multi-county
governments for the greater good.
The plan includes a Regional Growth Strategy that focuses growth in centers and near transit, with
the goal of sustaining and creating different types of urban communities, while preserving the
region’s working resource lands and open spaces. It directs PSRC to work with others to conserve,
restore, and steward the region’s open space and natural environment.
It states the region will protect natural areas and enhance the tree canopy. It guides growth that
reduces development pressures that threaten farms, forests, and natural areas.
VISION 2050 supports the work of the Puget Sound Partnership to promote a coordinated approach
to watershed planning and restoring Puget Sound. Key strategies for helping Puget Sound include
protecting open space and restoring urban lands through redevelopment and public investment.
There is nothing about this proposed development that is low impact, will be a steward of the
environment or retain tree canopies.
The goals of this document is to protect and restore natural resources that sequester and store
carbon such as forests, farmland, wetlands, estuaries, and urban tree canopy. It also works to
protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and critical areas. If you look at
any county or state map you will see that this proposed area of development is exactly why you
should care.
Further quote: Cities have an important role in accommodating new growth and taking development
pressure off resource areas.
Per the regional open space network, we are in a parks gap (orange priority 4 and surrounded by 3).
This area hosts walking trails, promotes biking, and helps the surrounding community stay cool in
the summer, protecting us from storms, recharges our groundwater and protects endangered
wildlife.
The whole parcel is marked as Farmland of statewide importance. The only thing better than that is
the areas that would be contaminated by runoff which are marked “all areas are prime
farmland”. This land should be protected at all costs and not subjected to a developer who spends
most of their time in London.
Furthermore, in WA State Department of Commerce guidance, the quality of groundwater in an
aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area. Where aquifers and their recharge areas have
been studied, counties and cities should use this information as the basis for classifying and
designating critical aquifer recharge areas. This area is marked as a Critical Recharge 1, very
important for our safe, clean drinking water.
The engineer said the plot has wetlands, Commerce states Counties and cities are encouraged to
make their actions consistent with the intent and goals of “protection of wetlands," per executive
orders.
Again, cooperative and coordinated land use planning is critically important among counties and
cities in a region for preserving fish and wildlife habitat conservation is the management of land for
maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated
subpopulations are not created. You cannot become isolated in your silo.
To bring it a little closer home, the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Environmental Chapter’s own
vision is “Protect Bremerton’s natural environment by meeting the needs of today’s citizens without
compromising the needs of future generations.” As one council member stated, the incorporation of
Enetai is inevitable. So not considering us now is not meeting the needs of future generations.
The goals of the Environment Element section are:
Stewardship: Provide stewardship by considering long-range implications of City policies on the
environment, to conduct City operations in a manner that protects the environment.
Earth: Preserve and enhance vegetation and earth resources.
Water: Protect water resources for present and future generations.
Air: Ensure compliance with good federal, state, regional, and local air quality standards through
coordinated, long-term strategies.
So what do we have and what does your plan say?
Wetlands. Wetlands help to maintain water quality; store and convey stormwater and floodwater;
recharge groundwater; provide important fish and wildlife habitat; and serve as areas for recreation,
education, scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. The City’s overall goal shall be to achieve no
net loss of wetlands.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Groundwater from aquifers provides a source of potable water and
contributes to stream discharge/flow. Critical aquifer recharge areas contribute to the recharge of
aquifers, springs and/or wells and are susceptible to contamination of water supplies through
infiltration of pollutants through the soil. City residents rely on an essential life-sustaining safe
drinking water supply.
Geologically Hazardous Areas. Regulation of geologically hazardous areas is meant to protect
human life and property from potential risks related to development on or near geologically
hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding,
geologic events, landslides, and moderate and steep slope areas.
Priority Habitat & Species. Identification of priority habitats and species is required when evaluating
critical area sites where wetlands and/or Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas are present.
Tree Canopy. Maintain and improve the City’s tree canopy. This combats heat islands.
On all the maps presented during a City study presented recently, I quote “they showed the
importance of keeping our resources as is.”
We recently received an annexation request as you know. In the annexation FAQ from the city of
Bremerton website, I quote “The City is conscientious of neighborhood compatibility and requires
that new development be at a similar density to the homes around it”. I share a property line with
Fisher’s development and I have a single family home on 4 acres. The others bordering him are 2-5
acres, with the smallest lots at 1/4 acre. The surrounding area is mostly sized at the 2-5 acre range
but even the smallest lots in the surrounding neighborhoods are still large enough to have their own
septic. The idea to put 189 homes on this plat would be scrutinized if the city considered their own
density fact.
Even closer to home, in an email from Janelle Hitch dated May 19, 2022 she states:
Upon receipt of a Utility Availability Request, the City will initiate the process to consider the request
for sewer extension for the proposed development.
She listed 7 criteria used in the evaluation of sewer extension. I believe the Public Works provided 5
of those in their study session last week. The two that were not discussed will need to be answered
prior to your decision. She states they are:
· Understanding of needed dedications, easements, and right-of-way for construction and
operation of the proposed system.
· Impacts to critical areas and potential mitigation requirements.
This implies that it is not up to the county or the permitting to figure it out.
I hope you vote to reject the sewer extension.
Thank you,
Felicienne Griffin and Jesse Matheson
3047 Rozewood Dr.
From: kathie.lustig@icloud.com <kathie.lustig@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:35 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Exhibits for Meeting / Pending Enetai Utility Service Request
Dear Bremerton City Council,
Please see documents for your review
Kathie Lustig
1 | P a g e
FISHER PLAT
PROJECT PROPOSAL / NARRATIVE
September, 2021
Name of Project:
Fisher Plat
Address of Project:
[two parcels, both with “No Situs Address” per Kitsap County Parcel GIS]
Applicant and Property Owner (per Kitsap County Parcel GIS):
FISHER JOHN C & EPP SHAWNA L
6964 WING POINT RD NE
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
Contacts:
Team 4 Engineering (consultant):
• Mark Kuhlman, P.E. (project manager)
5819 NE Minder Rd
Poulsbo, WA 98370
(360) 297-5560
• Timothy Witten (project coordinator, alternative contact)
(206) 858-0162
Project Location, Assessor’s Account Numbers and Legal Descriptions:
The proposed project is located in the Bremerton Urban Growth Area, but has not been
annexed into the City of Bremerton, and remains in unincorporated Kitsap County. It is located
in what is known as the Enetai neighborhood, just north of the city boundary of the City of
Bremerton, overlooking Port Orchard (the water body) to the east, and bounded by the
following streets: Hillside Drive NE, NE 30th Street and NE Enetai Beach Road.
2 | P a g e
The project will span and encompass the following two parcels:
1. Parcel 072402-2-104-2000, described as follows:
RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201605060109, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST,
W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
2. Parcel 072402-2-107-2007, described as follows:
RESULTANT PARCEL D OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201605060109, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, OF SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
3 | P a g e
Project Location Photographs
From the north – 30th Street
From the west – Hillside Drive
4 | P a g e
From the west – Hillside Drive
From the west – Keel Avenue
5 | P a g e
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zone
Both parcels for the proposed project are zoned Urban Low Residential, and are situated in the
East Bremerton Urban Growth Area (see Exhibit D).
Existing and Adjacent Land Use:
Site: Currently, two parcels, totaling 36.7 acres. The site is vacant, densely forested
and the terrain is flat to rolling to steeply sloped -- up to approximately 40% in
areas.
North: ROW of 30th Street NE, across which lie approximately seven single-family house
lots, including some in Wischhoefer’s Second Addition. The area is zoned Urban
Restricted.
East: Four parcels, all vacant/undeveloped and all zoned Urban Restricted – three of
which are owned by the Pensco Trust/John Fisher IRA, and one of which is
owned by Thomas and Sharon Kubisa. The parcels range in size from
approximately 2.5-11.5 acres.
West: ROW of Hillside Drive NE (constructed) and Cheney Street (platted); Rozewood
Estates Number Three, Short Plat 7283, Short Plat No. 61, all single -family homes
and the area is zoned UL and UR.
South: One single-family house lot of approximately 5 acres in size, owned by Mark and
Jennifer Hightower. NE Enetai Beach Road runs parallel, and in close proximity,
to the shared boundary.
Project Proposal - Introduction:
The proposed project is to develop this UL-zoned property into a single-family, detached home
subdivision. At this preliminary, investigative stage – three similar, but different lot
configurations – or “options” – are being considered for development of the property into
single-family residential lots, with general conformance with Kitsap County zoning
specifications for Urban Low Residential zoning (5-9 du/ac) and City of Bremerton R-10 zone
requirements. While all three options have in common the characteristics, features and issues
discussed below in the “Topics for Discussion” portions of this proposal, the differences among
them are as follows:
Option 1: (by Map Ltd.) 166 single-family detached house lots, as depicted in Exhibit A
Option 2: (by Team 4) 189 single-family detached house lots, with a minimum width of
50 feet per lot, as depicted in Exhibit B
Option 3: (by Team 4) 189 single-family detached house lots, with a mix of 62 lots at 40
feet wide and 127 lots at 50 feet wide, as depicted in Exhibit C
6 | P a g e
In brief, the three options offer diverse balances of the variables of density, affordability,
preservation of existing landforms and habitat, and connectivity to existing neighborhood and
as follows:
Option 1 provides the lowest density and the greatest natural feature preservation, but
offers less affordable lots, a lower variety of l ot size and only minimum connectivity.
Option 2 is the most intense, but offers more desirable lots – in part because they are
almost entirely uniform in size, offers significant street connectivity, but has a lower
level of preservation.
Option 3 offers a greater variety of lot size, improves natural feature preservation to a
greater degree than Option 2, and has the highest level of street connectivity and
attendant traffic dispersal.
Project Proposal – Topics for Discussion:
1) Jurisdiction: The property is in unincorporated Kitsap County, but is in the City of
Bremerton Urban Growth Area (see Exhibit D). The City and County do not have an
Interlocal Agreement and therefore the review and approval process will be through
Kitsap County DCD with the County Zoning Ordinance and Critical Area Ordinance to be
followed unless we annex into the City.
As discussed below, sanitary sewer will be provided by the City of Bremerton. The City,
through Ordinance 5306 has revised Section 15.03.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to
require properties requesting sanitary sewer service to be annexed to the City. There is
an exemption section that will allow the City Council to extend service without
annexation if annexation appears unfeasible. We must address this with the City in
order to finalize the site plan for compliance with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, we need to discuss and determine the viability of annexation in concert with
the City. The site is remote from existing city limits, but existing Power of Attorney
agreements with existing parcels may allow a successful process.
2) Utilities: The site is within the City of Bremerton Sanitary Sewer service area as stated
above. The site will need a Pump Station with a force main delivering the sewage to the
existing City system. We anticipate that the city will require the sewage to be pumped
to an existing pump station near 30th Street and Perry Avenue. We should discuss the
capacity of the City’s existing infrastructure and identify any upgrades that may be
required.
Water service will be from North Perry Water System. At this time, we do not know if
the District’s existing infrastructure is suitably sized for our additional demand. We will
coordinate with NPWS for service and any required upgrades.
7 | P a g e
We expect the development will be served by Puget Sound Energy and Cascade Natural
Gas.
3) Critical Areas: The Fisher holdings include areas not included in this development
proposal. These areas, as well as areas within the development proposal , include critical
areas such as steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and eagle trees.
We will retain a Geotechnical Engineer to identify the steep slopes to define setbacks
and work methods to allow reconfiguration of the slopes , and to define other
geotechnical design parameters. This work will address all the Fisher holdings as future
work outside of the plat boundaries will occur in or near steep slopes.
It is intended that the proposal will include the development and enhancement of the
views from the site through selective tree removal. The geotech, together with the
arborist, will define the requirements for the safety of this work.
The geotechnical analysis will determine the acceptability of our grading plan to ensure
slope stability and erosion control. Setbacks from top of slope and methodology of fill
on existing slopes will be important factors in the ultimate configuration of the lots and
associated infrastructure.
Stormwater management infrastructure and p ossibly water distribution facilities will be
built on land outside the plat boundary. The construction of these facilities will need to
comply with Geotech requirements provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Report for
the project.
We will retain a biologist to address any wetlands or streams that may exist onsite of
the plat or near the boundary of the plat as buffers may encroach onto the
development. The Biologist will need to address the Bald Eagle nests/perch trees
reported to be on the site. The Bald Eagle is no longer listed as an endangered species,
but some construction limitations may be proposed or required within 300 feet of a
nesting eagle.
4) Traffic: The project will engage a Traffic Engineer to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). This project will generate about 2000 end trips per day that may negatively impact
Level of Service in the surrounding road network.
The development options include varying degrees of street connectivity. We will look to
the City and/or the County to provide input on a preferred option; once that option has
been chosen, the TIA will be undertaken.
The Traffic Consultant will coordinate with the Engineering Departments at the County
and City as those agencies will review the predicted trip generation and distribution and
8 | P a g e
identify intersections for potential further study. We hope the City will share known
concerns at the Pre-Submittal Meeting.
5) Views: The desirability of lots within the development will be increased significantly if
the view potential of the site can be enhanced. Currently the view is obstructed by trees
on adjacent Fisher holdings (to the east; see figure on page 2). Therefore, tree removal
outside of plat boundaries is proposed. We hope the City can provide guidance on this
process.
6) Streets: Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton have Street Standards that define
construction of streets to be Public Right of Way streets to be maintained by the
jurisdiction. The standards do not match. The County discourages development of public
streets in residential developments; private streets are preferred to eliminate long term
maintenance expenses. On the other hand, our understanding is that the City of
Bremerton still accepts Public Streets. We will need to determine which jurisdiction will
process the application and select which standards we will adhere to. Because this area
will ultimately – if not immediately – be within the Bremerton city limits, we may choose
to use the Bremerton Street Standards so that the streets will in due course be
dedicated to, and maintained by, the City.
Please note that Map Ltd’s layout (Option 1) did not include improvements to the
Hillside ROW; it is assumed this was done to allow the neighbors to see/feel less change
by retaining a somewhat wooded strip and pedestrian path.
We consider this as an option for us, but we want to hear from the City and perhaps the
County on their preference/thoughts on the concept of street connectivity. The
Rozewood Estates plat (to the west) has dead end streets that likely expected Hillside to
be constructed and provide connectivity for emergency vehicle access and safety.
7) Stormwater Management: The stormwater management systems today require
Quantity Control and Quality Enhancement facilities to comply with state mandated
requirements. Because the Fisher holdings include waterfront, we propose to provide
quantity control by using direct discharge to the bay. The use of direct discharge will
simplify the design and construction required. This approach may require a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) unless we can keep the cost of construction
within 200 feet of the shoreline below a threshold cost. We hope the City can clarify
and stipulate if the SSDP is required.
8) Process: Both the City and County include the SSDP and the Preliminary Plat as Type III
processes, meaning a public hearing is required.
9 | P a g e
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Option 1: By Map Ltd, 166 lots, 40’ x 100’
10 | P a g e
Exhibit B – Option 2: By Team 4 189 lots, 50’ x 100’
11 | P a g e
Exhibit C – Option 3: By Team 4, 189 lots, 62@40’ width and 127@50’ width
12 | P a g e
Exhibit D: Fisher property in relation to area UGAs and current City Limits
S e a r c h O p t i o n s
Pa r c e l N o
S i t e A d d r e s s
M a i l A d d r e s s
M a p S c a l e : 1 : 1 0 ,0 0 0
S h o w r e s u l t s i n a t a b l e , n o t t h e m a p .H eDisclaimerContact G I S
P a r c e l S e a r c h
Zoom In Zoom Out Full Extent Prev Extent Next Extent Pan Draw Measure Layers Results Print
+
−
Zo o m t o L o c a t i o n >
M a n a g e L a y e r s
C u r r e n t M a p T h e m e : Zo n i n g
C h o o s e A T h e m e
Wa t e r b o d i e s
B u i l d i n g s A d d r e s s e s
Zo n i n g
V i e w P r o t e c t i o n O v e r l a y
D e s i g n D i s t r i c t s
K i t s a p C o u n t y Zo n i n g D e s i g n a t i o n s
K i t s a p C o u n t y 1 9 9 8 Zo n i n g D e s i g n a t i o n s
P a r c e l s
Ta x P a r c e l s O u t l i n e s
L a y e r L i s t L e g e n d FISHER
PLAT
FISHER
PLAT
S e a r c h O p t i o n s
Pa r c e l N o
S i t e A d d r e s s
M a i l A d d r e s s
M a p S c a l e : 1 : 4 ,8 0 0
S h o w r e s u l t s i n a t a b l e , n o t t h e m a p .H eDisclaimerContact G I S
P a r c e l S e a r c h
Zoom In Zoom Out Full Extent Prev Extent Next Extent Pan Draw Measure Layers Results Print
+
−
Zo o m t o L o c a t i o n >
M a n a g e L a y e r s
C u r r e n t M a p T h e m e : S h o r e l i n e M a n a g e m e n t
C h o o s e A T h e m e
Wa t e r b o d i e s
S h o r e l i n e M a s t e r P l a n
B u i l d i n g s A d d r e s s e s
C r i t i c a l _A r e a s
Wa t e r b o d i e s
We t l a n d s
F E M A F l o o d H a z a r d A r e a s
H y d r i c S o i l s
G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s
L a y e r L i s t L e g e n d
FISHER
PARCEL
FISHER
PARCEL
Published for
October 25
Study Session
ITEM A4 – Public Comments
From: christie schultz <christiesue5150@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 9:35 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Proposed sewer hook-up for Fisher plat development
I live on Candy Cane Lane, otherwise known as Viewcrest Drive, just to the north of this proposed
development. Lived here 22 years now. My family was associated here years prior, working on the
Bangor base construction. I am happy being in the county, and believe me, my property taxes pay for
services, it's not like I'm enjoying urban benefits for free. My septic system works just great and is well
maintained.
The question before the Bremerton City Council right NOW is, whether to allow a hook-up for the Fisher
plat proposed development of 186 units. At the meeting of Oct 18, 2023, it was plain the locals don't want
it, anymore than they wanted to be annexed into the city, and we sure don't want sewer lines and sewer
taxes. It looks like both proposals are being driven by the same person, a developer with a desire for high
density housing.
Two speakers at the meeting made good sense, Gary Anderson (spoke for the development team) and
Judith Krigsman on open mike (please review what they had to say.) I'm sorry to say I was really put off
by the presentation by Ms. Hitch, she did not speak clearly and I have no idea what facts and figures she
was putting out; perhaps that was intentional, I'd hate to think so. It sounded like more taxes, and your
average citizen doesn't want that either!!! Indeed, the entire proposal is VERY vague, the developer is
trying to get an ok for a sewer hook-up (so he can get a loan!!!) with absolutely NO clear plan for the type
of sewer piping, where it will be laid; is it above ground, below ground, how much street is he planning to
dig up, will it rupture in a tectonic event and flood the area and salmon streams with high pressure fecal
matter??? I liked VERY much what Mr. Anderson said, because there is a LOT of research that needs to
be done yet, and for that reason alone, with no clear reliable plan, the city should take pause prior to
facilitating ANYTHING regarding the development. Make them do their homework first. Please.
There aren't very many "pros" to this development, not for citizens and local residents. Invoking the
UGA/GMA ordinance(s) sounds great until you take a closer look at the terrain. The Fisher annex is NOT
a good place to build, which is probably why no one has built on it yet, the land slopes (a 15 foot drop
off 30th at the end of Viewcrest), the soil is friable.
The City of Bremerton needs to consider if their sewer system can handle 186 more homes hooked to
their system. Can the roads in that area handle the new units? There USED to be an elementary school
sitting where Mountain View Middle School is right now, but that was scooped off the map. Where did you
plan to bus all those small children (K-5th grade) from the 186 units, for education? Have you planned for
all the traffic from the buses?
There is no plan for storm-water run off from this proposed development, you can't just dump it into an
ecologically fragile zone. There are many other concerns involving salmon streams, environmental impact
and geological fitness of the terrain and soil in the area, but those are more properly addressed with the
county. In the long run, what is the City of Bremerton letting themselves in for if they green-light the hook-
up for this proposed development? And what will the Bremerton of the Future inherit when all this grows
into reality? The citizens who live in the area of the Fisher Plat are pretty upset. There is talk of hiring
lawyers and filing injunctions.
Judith Krigsman brought up something I worked on with her and the rest of the Illahee community some
years ago. As I recall, the entire eastern shore of our peninsula, from Gilberton, through Illahee, Illahee
Park, Candy Cane Lane, and the Cheney estates (now the Fisher properties) was designated a Greenbelt
BY THE COUNTY and along with that comes certain restrictions on building, not the least of which is a
low, protected density zone. Candy Cane Lane (Viewcrest) is designated a wildlife corridor (and believe
me, it is.... lots of critters in our yards!)
You need to consider whether removing this aquafer recharge area will impact the supply from North
Perry Water; we LIVE here, and know that every hot summer, North Perry Water runs incredibly low....
adding 186 units, and subtracting all that aquifer recharge forest is going to strain our water supply.
Septic systems help to recharge the aquafer, which is why they are preferable to sewer systems when
considering the "green" aspect of any development.
Please don't approve a sewer hook-up for this development. My concern is, once the high pressure, lift-
station-enabled sewer system has been installed for the development (going over one or two salmon
creeks) THEN a developer will come in and disrupt the forest and that ecosystem, then suddenly find
there are geological problems with this development, and the land will sit there, naked and un-used for
years. If you look at Illahee Creek delta, you will see what deforestation and urban-growth run-off does to
the shoreline. Bare land erodes QUICKLY and urban sprawl creates massive storm run-off. This too will
happen to the Enetai area, and the Fisher annex.
No one gives a hoot about the UGA/GMA except the developers. I heard repeatedly a cadence of "we
need more homes" and that's a lot of hogwash. We need the high-density homes near the city core where
the services are, not on the shoreline where there are no stores, no schools and no bus lines. There are
empty places to develop all up and down the 303 (Wheaton Way) corridor. This is a situation where a
developer got some unbuildable land for a relatively cheap price and wants to make a killing with a high-
density development. Stripping away all the emotions and greed attached to this proposition (yea or nay)
what this seems to be boiling down to is Greenbelt vs. Development. You as our elected officials, need to
consider, do we allow our community on the peninsula to become an ugly, over-developed extension of
the Seattle side? Or do we try and preserve a bit of nature next to our homes, and make the Bremerton
area a beautiful upscale place to be? All the "Quincy Square" art is not going to make this an attractive
destination; those tourists on the ferry and cruise ship want to see trees, not "art." How about building a
few natural walking trails???
We citizens who LIVE here would beg you to look at the bigger picture, and understand that developing
the eastern shoreline is NOT an inevitability, it's badly thought through and an ill-considered proposition.
It's causing more problems than it is solving. Please do not facilitate high density development in this
region. Maybe you should consider taking some of the money you plan to pour into the "art" for Quincy
square, and think of buying the Fisher plat for a park! What a concept.
Thank you for your time, best regards, Christie Schultz
From: Bill Gannon <wilgan47@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 1:41 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: City council meeting Oct 18
My name is William Gannon and I live in the county at 3118 Viewcrest Dr. which is very close to that
Fisher Plat project. At the council meeting last night, the public presented evidence this project will
destroy the habitat for a substantial amount and variety of wild life, plus decrease the quality
environment. This area has low vehicle traffic and a beautiful forest, which city and county residents to
escape the summer heat and visit nature.
This area as it is improves the quality of life for everyone that uses it. It is also provides vital living area
for wild life.
By a narrow interpretation of your operating guidelines, you just provide a sewage removal service to
the community. Your service is not needed in the county, the county has it’s own standards for
development.
This developer is trying to squeeze through the laws to maximize his profit by offering to build a
expensive sewage line for free. It is not free. It will drive up the cost of community services provided to
the residence.
This project does not fit into the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 2044. The plan talks about planning
community growth around government provided services, transportation hubs and upgraded utilities. It
also states we should protect the environment. Everyone in the room could see that this attempt by a
small, but very wealthy corporation to make a large profit at the expense of county, city and people of
Bremerton.
Please do your civic duty and vote no on the sewer expansion project.
Bill Gannon
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 12:05 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Ned Lever
<Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Public meeting.
Good morning,
I just wanted to start by saying thank you for letting all of my neighbors and myself speak yesterday. I
know it was overwhelming to hear from so many people that are not technically any of your
constituents. You can understand why a lot of us were so passionate when it felt like the developers
engineering team was making it very clear that we were not Bremerton residents. Which was ironic
because none of them are Bremerton residents and neither is the developer. Councilwoman Frey, thank
you so much for speaking up for us. A lot of us felt acknowledged by your comments and want you to
know we appreciate it. Looking at the urban growth boundaries for east Bremerton, it seems a large
majority of that 303 corridor and residents along illahee are also not considered Bremerton residents so
I am sure they also share our passion for feeling under represented in situations like this. We contribute
to businesses in Bremerton just as much as city residents ,have our children in bremerton school district
and support city businesses in numerous ways. I for one saw that our children’s school, Kitsap Lake
Elementary, did not have a PTA so I figured out how to start a nonprofit and incorporated through the
state and IRS in a month so that the school did not go without a parent teacher organization. If you’re
wondering why we do not go to our district school which is view ridge, it’s because our oldest is a highly
gifted student and Kitsap Lake is the only school in the district that provides those services to the gifted
kids in the district. We miss our district school but knew this was the right choice for his academics. We
love this community dearly and while we are not city residents, we are part of Bremerton. That being
said, is there a way to be notified on when this decision will be made so we are able to be there in
person? All of us are running on hopes and dreams at this point but I know we all want to make sure to
stay on top of the decision if there are further questions to be had or answered.
Thank you again and have a great rest of the week. Below you will find a few articles to have on hand.
One published in the Kitsap Sun and the other from a King 5 story from last night.
Sincerely,
Sarah Hoffer
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bremerton/development-proposal-bremerton-
concerns/281-c0518811-a450-4945-bbad-0bc556ab5bb3
https://www.kitsapsun.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kitsapsun.com%2Fstory%2Fnew
s%2F2023%2F10%2F17%2Fdeveloper-asks-bremerton-to-approve-sewer-utility-for-189-
homes%2F71171467007%2F#lnwapr62m93v0xc6xee
From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 10:57 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Kylie Finnell
<Kylie.Finnell@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea
Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Robert
Endsley <Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Citizen Message - Public Comments on Fisher Plat (Steven Harris)
Atn: Council Members (FYI)
A voice message was received at the Council Office on October 19 at 8:54 AM from Steven Harris. He
provided comments in support of “Resolution No. 3367 to authorize the Extension of Wastewater Utility
Services to the Fisher Plat located within the East Bremerton Urban Growth Area”; and emphasized the
need for more housing.
Since he also referenced King 5 News, I’ve copied the link below to the online ar�cle and newsclip for
your reference:
htps://www.king5.com/ar�cle/news/local/bremerton/development-proposal-bremerton-
concerns/281-c0518811-a450-4945-bbad-0bc556ab5bb3
Mr. Harris did not request a call, but le� his contact informa�on as (315) 657-1870.
Lastly, a copy of this email will be included in the record for the October 25 Study Session.
Christine Grenier
Legislative/Auditor Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
www.BremertonWA.gov
From: Anthony Augello <chipaugel77@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 9:24 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher plat concern
To Whom It May Concern,
Please provide the code that the Bremerton City Council is considering that gives Bremerton a poten�al
right to extend sewer u�lity service through a non-con�guous unincorporated area in which the
residents voted 90% not to be annexed so that the sewer system will reach a proposed urban growth
area (UGA).
Also, please provide informa�on that shows the proposed UGA is actually considered part of the City of
Bremerton already.
Thank you,
Anthony Augello
From: Anthony Augello <chipaugel77@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:47 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Concerns RE: Fisher Plat (Anthony Augello)
Thank you. Also, if legal at all, what is being done to ensure the plans, proposed scope of work, and
details of the project are reviewed beforehand to address all the environmental impacts resulting from
this proposal, including wildlife, fisheries and Puget Sound contamination, as well as increased traffic,
emergency access concerns, infrastructure, and pollution?
SUBJECT: Sewer Availability for the Development on the Fisher Estate for
everyone
The environment is the source of life for everyone. We must balance the natural
cycle that exists between the environment and the lives of human beings, plants,
and animals.
Team 4 Engineering needs to understand that the Illahee community saw this
coming back in 2006 and 2008, so the community got together and wrote a
Community Plan. I was part of that committee. Our Board of County
Commissioners approved this plan, and you w ill find it part of the KC
Comprehensive Plan. Illahee’s boundary is a stone's throw from 40 St. In our
Illahee Community Plan this area is zoned Restricted, and Greenbelt with a View
Protection Overlay for this area. There is a reason for this. I suggest Team 4
Engineering revisit the Illahee Community Plan and the Kitsap County
Comprehensive Plan. This would benefit them. The terrain is not suited for
sewers. Illahee's zoning reflects this.
In the Illahee Community Plan we address the Bremer -Cheney-now Fisher Estate.
This wildlife patch connects to Illahee State Park and then to the Illahee Preserve.
There is a reason the zoning is Restricted, Greenbelt. Kitsap County recognizes
the fragility of the area and chose to listen to its Illahee neighbors and enforce
and endorse Illahee's Community Plan. It works well and rearranging the
environment with 189 new homes and sewers would be a grave mistake.
In closing, this property contains this land of historical significance. The very
founder of Bremerton, Mr. Bremer, saw this property as a special place to live,
The Cheney family saw the value of the forest, this is our history, Bremerton’s
history. Will the Fisher family find a way to recognize the historical and
environmental value of what they are proposing? Sewer approval for this
property will open Pandora’s Box beyond what we can imagine now and would be
a travesty to our community and the wildlife community existing there now. Do
not allow this to become unbalanced.
It is our responsibility to see this does not happen and work together for a more
sustainable future. This request by Team 4 is not viable.
Respectfully submitted: Judith Krigsman 5171 Illahee Rd. 360 792 6934
From: Judith Krigsman <KRIGSMAN83@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 7:58 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Comment re: Sewer Availability for the Fisher Plat
Please distribute the attached public comment letter to each City Council member.
Thank You
Judith Krigsman
5171 Illahee Rd. NE
Bremerton, WA. 98311
360 792 6934
email: krigsman83@msn.com
From: Larry Thomas <stonetheking@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 7:57 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: New housing development in Enetai.
We the people in Illahee and Enetai do not want a new housing development in this peaceful
neighborhood. We do not want you superseding the residences sediment of a developers sewer system.
From: Suzanne Rowley <smrowley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 12:45 AM
To: KWalters@kisap.gov; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Kathie.lustig@icloud.com
Subject: Land development between E 30th Street, Trenton and Rozewood
Bremerton City Council and County Commissioner Katie Walters,
The City of Bremerton and the County of Kitsap have an important decision in front of them. Some may
say, ''our decision is only, '' Is the city able to handle sewer hook up for this development?''. Others may
say, ''our decision is only whether we will allow the permitting of this development''. But as we all know
personally and professionally, especially if we are in public or elected service, all decisions have rippling
ramifications.
When the ''circle'' was drawn to decide where to attempt to keep high density zoning so that Bremerton
did not proceed into urban sprawl, probably it was innocent enough deciding on a distance from the City
center without looking at specific areas within that distance. If people had looked at this land in
particular, they would see that it is not flat like the land above Safeway, or behind Wilco for example,
[offered as an example where high density housing was allowed to be built], the property of the old
Cheney estate, in contrast, consists of steep hillsides and ravines.
I do not know how many of the County Commissioners or City Council has walked the trail from the end
of Keel to the end of 30th but if they had they would see, not only the beauty of this old forest- [maybe
2nd growth],- but how fragile it truly is. I am offering to meet anyone so inclined to walk this trail with
me. I am flexible on my time on most days besides Tuesdays. You would see the site of the huge cliff
collapse of 8 to 10 years ago that fell, giving an unobstructed view straight across the water to Port
Orchard and the thicket of Alders that have grown up in the aftermath. You would also see where the
new cliff edge is being eroded with the potential to break off a new section. You would see the small
erosion near the trail that probably by next spring, will have opened to a larger gully funneling rain
water down below. These are examples of the incline of this forested area and how rain is continually
trying to wash it down to sea level.
You would also realize that what is holding this area of land is the trees. Huge old trees. In order to build
at this density a person would have to do 1 of 2 things: after cutting down all the trees, either build each
house as a house on a hillside, driving pilings deep into the earth, or take the dirt off the high points and
fill in the ravines and gullies to make it more flat. And of course when you cut down all the trees you
create more problems with rain and water runoff without the roots taking up a huge quantity of water.
Not to mention the carbon dioxide not being absorbed and the oxygen not being released.
The City and County both talk about preserving the environment but then one decision at a time, in
isolation, they allow construction to build on fragile land by making small mitigations. Mitigations that
really are not equal to what has been destroyed. They look at each decision in isolation and say, ''well,
ok with this one''. And then, ''ok with that one''. At times the companies even cut down trees, or make
other beginnings to their plan without proper clearance or approval and then go, ''opps , my bad. Fine
me and I will pay'' and the city or county goes, 'ok, what can we do about it now'.
So, if you are interested in looking at the real repercussions of what your decision means, contact me, in
a group or individually, and I will walk you thru the trail so you can see the true meaning of your
decisions.
At that point you will have sufficient information along with the other information you already have, to
make this important decision.
I am thinking that 1 house per 1 acre or 1 house per 2.5 acres would make these houses safe enough
not to end up down at the bottoms of the ravines, would preserve the integrity of the land and still
make the developer gobs of money.
Suzanne Rowley
2507 NE 30th Street
Bremerton
360-509-9263
Fisher Plat - Public Hearing from Bremerton City Council on 10/18/2023
Developer Response to Comments
Developer Reputation: Comments were made disparaging the Fishers as having a poor record and
reputation as developers.
This must be an error.
The Fishers are from outside of the area and have never engaged in land development in Kitsap
County, or anywhere else for that matter.
The Fisher family spends their summers at the property; they have 4 young children, they
purchased the property because they love the area.
Zoning and Density:
The zoning for the property is Urban Low Residential (5 – 9 DU/AC). Kitsap County may object or
challenge any development that does not meet that target. That density is not achievable with on-
site septic systems.
Kitsap County recognizes community drainfields as a suitable method (under GMA) to achieve
urban densities for properties within the UGA where sewer is not readily available or cost effective
to provide.
Total Acres owned by Fishers:
Someone stated they own 100 acres, they own ~65 acres. The proposed development area is ~35
acres on the Western most two parcels.
Furthermore, the contributing area served by the proposed sewer pump station does not include
the waterfront Fisher properties.
Previous Property Owners Intent: Comments were made suggesting the previous owners (Cheney family)
intended for the property to remain undeveloped and/or developed at much less density.
In May 2016, the Cheney family wrote a letter to the Kitsap County Planning Supervisor which
strongly opposed against changing the zoning from Urban Low Residential (5-9 DU/AC) to Urban
Restricted (1-5 DU/AC).
Sewer Capacity Analysis:
The Perry Avenue sanitary sewer collection system is well under the capacity of the full buildout
of the existing service area and the proposed pump station contributing area.
The City Engineers concur there is enough capacity in the collection and treatment systems.
General Topics:
We are at the start of a multi-year process
Granting us permission to connect to the sewer isn't approving a housing development
We don't even know if the project is viable.
We are asking permission to connect to sewer because we think it's the best long-term solution
for development in the area. The property is in the UGA and eventually will be part of
Bremerton. The alternative is septic systems or a community drain field.
The purpose of the plat presented as 189 units was for the purpose of the sewer study. We had
to complete a study that represented the density provided by the zoning. We do not know what
a potential development could look like because that process hasn't started. Again, we are at the
very beginning of the process.
Illahee Community Plan:
Someone mentioned the 2008 Illahee Community Plan. This property was NOT included in that
plan. We found the plan and it discusses many topics as presented, although the Illahee
community plan boundary is North of the proposed parcel location, see below. Therefore, the
plan is not applicable to the proposed plat area.
From: kathie.lustig@icloud.com <kathie.lustig@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:38 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Comments re: Enetai Sewer Extension request
Dear City Council,
I thank you for giving the public opportunity to express their opinions and feelings about the pending
sewer extension request and the serious ramifications it could have on our neighborhoods. To make a
decision that impacts the lives of all the surrounding residents to this proposed subdivision AND NOT
consider the ramifications is irresponsible leadership. It appears that based on some of the City Council
members comments, that they have not walked the parcels or the surrounding areas adjacent to it. Im
not sure how members can vote on this sewer extension request under these circumstances without
doing due diligence on these parcels. This is a historical property once owned by Bremerton founder
William Bremer with topography that is the same as Illahee State Park. It is adjacent to a wildlife
corridor. The council, at a minimum owes it our community the effort to walk the area and visually see
how their decision could open the door to destroy a fragile old growth forest and destroy neighborhood
character and safety before making this decision. To put blinders on and state that this is a “deceptively”
complex and reduce it to only a “utility” provider service using a loophole in the rules is an insult to the
community.
The CC Chair has made some statements on Instagram that are, in part, inaccurate and with no ability
for anyone to comment or correct the information. The proposed draft subdivision is 189 homes vs 100+
stated on the instagram post. Minimizing the density does not serve to inform the public. Claims the
developer will pay the entire cost of extending the sewer to the parcel but fails to mention those costs
will be passed on clouds the facts. Passed on to anyone purchasing a home in his proposed subdivision
and other residences forced to hookup (when septics fail) to that reside 200’ of the sewer line and have
to pay the developer a fee. This cannot be simplified as a no-cost benefit to the city or to the residents in
the area. The developer is only bearing the “initial” costs of the sewer line connection that he needs to
build his subdivision with potential gross income of $140 Million dollars (based on $700K x 200 homes).
This is nothing more than an investment with high returns. Don't sell out our neighborhoods and old
growth forest for short-term gain being dangled in front of you for the profit of one developer and/or
investor partnerships. The real value is in the residents who live here and truly care about their
properties and community.
The map posted on Instagram shows the developer’s other adjacent properties for “potential
development”. One only has to walk the beach and the property, to see those adjacent parcels have
little “development” potential given the slope and unstable soils alone. The attached maps showing
hazards make it abundantly clear how unsuitable it is. The developer wants to removed trees at the top
of the other parcels so his subdivision could have better views. Those adjacent parcels are zoned "Urban
Restricted” (Blue) just as most all the parcels and lots around it. There is a reason the county came in, in
2016 and rezoned a large swath of coastal parcels in this area to Urban Restricted. It's unclear why the
zoning in the area even didn't go a step further.
HISTORICAL ZONING ON THESE PARCELS
"The proposed development is currently zoned Urban Low-Density Residential , e.g., the County has
already slated it for development.”. Perhaps some history on the zoning changes to this property
would be helpful to put into perspective. My attached maps hopeful provide some detail and simplicity.
The information is pulled off the current Kitsap County GIS Parcel Search map and the date of the data
used to create it is unknown. The information I have conflicts with the information submitted and
presented by Jon Rose, with the company designation of Alchemy Development in this weeks study
packet. It has no address or identifying information below the logo.
As a professional Cartographer/ graphic artist, I have designed maps, charts and graphs to present
information accurately, properly sourced and in a professional reader-friendly form. The one-page
“Fisher Plat Comprehensive Plan and Regulatory History” and attached maps of comprehensive plans by
year are not reader-friendly by any means. The maps are illegible and cover too big of area to see any
real detail. An unreadable map serves no purpose and nothing more than a filler to back up a one page
undated typed statement with no letterhead that doesn't represent all the facts.
The facts are:
1. The County rezoned a large swath of parcels abutting the shoreline from Manette up to the north to
30th for these purposes in 2016 to Urban Restricted. See blue areas that surround the Proposed Fisher
Plat on ZONING.pdf.
2. Kitsap County has NOT planned for 25 years that these parcels are targeted for Urban-level growth.
The County deemed these parcels should be Urban Restricted in 2016.
3. The Cheney Foundation (former owners) opposed the rezoning to Urban Restricted. They did some lot
line adjustments to the parcels resulting in reconfigurations with the less steep areas combined into the
top two for future development purposes and just prior to putting the property up for sale for 5 million
dollars. The Cheney Foundation then offered a compromise to the County, that allowed the other
parcels to be rezoned Urban Restricted and the top two parcels to remain Urban Low Residential.
4. The other property owners adjacent on all boundaries to the Cheney Foundation parcels (now Fisher)
were NOT notified by the county of any changes/rezoning or the Compromise Agreement between the
County and the Cheney Foundation prior to its sale in 2017. (Attached) Apparently the County has no
requirements to notify adjacent property owners of lot line adjustments within contiguous parcels.
5. The property owners adjacent to (west of) the Fisher parcel on Hillside (south of 30th) had their
properties rezoned in 2016 to Urban Restricted apparently without notification from the county.
Residents are only learning now what has transpired.
6. It is unknown how and when they Cheney Foundation was notified of the rezoning on their parcels,
allowed to oppose it, when other property owners were not? The Hillside owners parcels are flat
relative to the former Cheney parcels allowed to remain Urban Low-Residential.
7. The shaded and colored areas reflected on the Hazards map show the significant Critical Areas on the
Fisher properties. IE: Dark is bad. That hazards are too numerous to address at this time.
8. A map with smaller contour intervals would reflect the actual detail of topography of the proposed
subdivision. I have requested updated data and smaller scale maps.
9. The steep and uneven topography on these parcels is essentially the same as Illahee State Park. A
wildlife corridor connects it to the Fisher parcels.(See olive green on ZONING map)
10. It is unclear why the GB (Wildlife Corrider) directly adjacent to the Fisher parcels did not continue
south. Anyone whom has walked the area or resides around the Fisher Plat parcels knows full well the
animals that move through here. It is a wildlife corridor.
11. The proposed Narrative for the sewer line extension mentions the Fisher Parcel has a west boundary
with Hillside, most of which is unopened ROW (Right -of-Way) and part of the old growth forest. There is
no mention that the development could and likely would open roads (Keel, Helm, Rozewood & Hillside)
that feed to Rozewood Estates creating safety hazards in that neighborhood. Opening these roads to
200 homes would essential destroy the quiet safety of this neighborhood. The same would happen to
the residents on and off 30th. This property is on an island with only one way in and one way out.
10. The preferred sewer extension route construction on Helm would slice Rozewood Estates in half
making it a nightmare in our quiet neighborhood.
I sincerely hope that the City Council will fully evaluate this proposed sewer extension request and
consider all the facts. Again, I encourage you all to go and get boots on the ground to see for yourself
the impacts your decision will have on the neighborhoods around this proposed subdivision and the old
growth forest before you sign off on it’s destruction. You will see for yourself, that a density of this
magnitude is NOT appropriate in this setting. Additionally, it does not fit the City priorities for Regional
Urban Growth targeted areas of already existing density and infrastructure. Short-term fiscal benefits do
not pencil out at this time in the long-term. Another day, and another parcel. You are their to build, not
destroy.
Sincerely,
Kathie Lustig
Rozewood Drive Resident
S e a r c h O p t i o n s
Pa r c e l N o
S i t e A d d r e s s
M a i l A d d r e s s
M a p S c a l e : 1 : 4 ,8 0 0
S h o w r e s u l t s i n a t a b l e , n o t t h e m a p .H eDisclaimerContact G I S
P a r c e l S e a r c h
Zoom In Zoom Out Full Extent Prev Extent Next Extent Pan Draw Measure Layers Results Print
+
−
Zo o m t o L o c a t i o n >
M a n a g e L a y e r s
C u r r e n t M a p T h e m e : S h o r e l i n e M a n a g e m e n t
C h o o s e A T h e m e
Wa t e r b o d i e s
S h o r e l i n e M a s t e r P l a n
B u i l d i n g s A d d r e s s e s
C r i t i c a l _A r e a s
Wa t e r b o d i e s
We t l a n d s
F E M A F l o o d H a z a r d A r e a s
H y d r i c S o i l s
G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s
L a y e r L i s t L e g e n d
FISHER
PARCEL
FISHER
PARCEL
S e a r c h O p t i o n s
Pa r c e l N o
S i t e A d d r e s s
M a i l A d d r e s s
M a p S c a l e : 1 : 1 0 ,0 0 0
S h o w r e s u l t s i n a t a b l e , n o t t h e m a p .H eDisclaimerContact G I S
P a r c e l S e a r c h
Zoom In Zoom Out Full Extent Prev Extent Next Extent Pan Draw Measure Layers Results Print
+
−
Zo o m t o L o c a t i o n >
M a n a g e L a y e r s
C u r r e n t M a p T h e m e : Zo n i n g
C h o o s e A T h e m e
Wa t e r b o d i e s
B u i l d i n g s A d d r e s s e s
Zo n i n g
V i e w P r o t e c t i o n O v e r l a y
D e s i g n D i s t r i c t s
K i t s a p C o u n t y Zo n i n g D e s i g n a t i o n s
K i t s a p C o u n t y 1 9 9 8 Zo n i n g D e s i g n a t i o n s
P a r c e l s
Ta x P a r c e l s O u t l i n e s
L a y e r L i s t L e g e n d FISHER
PLAT
FISHER
PLAT
From: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:03 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle
Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Robert Endsley <Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Re: Public Comments - Fisher Plat Project (Blake Hoffer)
Resending to correct a unit conversion error I made when calculating depth of wastewater piping from
my property to Hillside Drive below. Apologies for the error and multiple emails.
Blake Hoffer
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:55 AM Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com> wrote:
Good morning-
I have been reading through the Fisher Plat Sewer Analysis from Team4 and there appears to be some
incorrect conclusions detailed in the report. Paragraph III.A. (Contributing Area) states the following:
“Per a request from the City of Bremerton Engineering Department (see Appendix B), the gravity portion
of the proposed service area has been requested to also include the adjacent areas within TRT-2, TRT-3,
and TRT-4 that will flow by gravity to the proposed project Pumping Station location.”
My property is shown inside the Kitsap County UR - Gravity area to the west of the Fisher plat when
referencing Figure 3 of this report. Due to the topography of this area, it is totally unrealistic for my
property, or many others in surrounding areas, to flow by gravity to the proposed Pumping Station
location. This area is down slope and sloping away from the Fisher plat. Assuming a standard downward
slope for wastewater piping of 0.25”/foot, my gravity wastewater piping would be just short of 15 feet
deep just to get it up to Hillside Drive. The piping would have to then continue deeper still until it could
intersect with a lateral somewhere on the Fisher plat. Other properties in the area further downslope
and away from the Fisher plat would have even more extreme difficulties installing gravity wastewater
systems. This effort would place an enormous burden on my neighbors and me. A burden that is not
represented well in the statement by the developers at the City Council meeting last week, “Surrounding
properties would have the opportunity to hookup to City sewer.” The Sewer Analysis is drawing
erroneous conclusions about the surrounding areas and not exhibiting just how much of an impact this
has on the community.
Blake Hoffer
From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Anthony Augello <chipaugel77@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Kylie Finnell
<Kylie.Finnell@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea
Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Robert
Endsley <Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov; City Council
<City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Continued Concerns RE: Fisher Plat (Anthony Augello)
Hi Mr. Augello,
I wanted to provide the attached PDF that is a portion of the Council packet from the Oct.
18 public meeting (all publicly available via https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-
Packet). It should contain all the information you are requesting regarding relevant laws
and procedures regarding the city and the proposed sewer extension.
Regarding Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and Annexation, this webpage has a wealth of
information and shows a graphic of all of Bremerton's UGAs, including the East Bremerton
UGA where the plat in question is located: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/170/Annexation
Should this area be developed, since it is in the County, the County would oversee all
permitting, planning, environmental review, access, etc. The County Commissioner that
represents the area in question, Commissioner Katie Walters, is CCed to provide you
answers on that process and concerns.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56).
To: City Council
From: Janelle Hitch, Managing Engineer – Development, of Public Works and Utilities
Date: 9/15/2023
Re: Fisher Plat Request for Utility Services outside the City of Bremerton City Limits
Request: The Applicant, John Fisher and Shawna Epp, have requested City wastewater utility
services for a proposed 189-lot subdivision in the Enetai neighborhood. The Fisher Plat is
proposed for tax parcels 072402-2-107-2007 & 072402-2-104-2000 overlooking Port Orchard
Narrows (the water body) to the east and bounded by the following streets: Hillside Drive NE, NE
30th Street and NE Enetai Beach Road (see Exhibit 1 Site Map).
City Council’s Decision: Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040, “It is the
general policy of the City of Bremerton that properties located outside the City limits annex into
the City before wastewater utility services are provided to those properties. For the purpose of
this section, “service” means extension of and/or service connections to City wastewater utilities
to property located outside City limits.” The City Council may, in its sole and absolute discretion,
provide wastewater utility services to properties outside of the City limits if certain conditions
are met. The relevant exception for the Council to allow wastewater utility services without
annexation falls under BMC 15.03.040 (b) (1) "Annexation Not Feasible.”
Department of Community Development (DCD) Analysis of Annexation: Pursuant to Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) 15.30.040 when an owner of a property located outside the City limits
requests extension of utility service, the City Council may provide wastewater utility services to
those properties if annexation is not feasible. This portion of this document summarizes why
annexation for tax parcels 072402-2-107-2007 & 072402-2-104-2000 (the subject parcels) is not
considered feasible at this time.
Exhibit 2, attached, shows the location of the potential annexation request in Enetai. The figure
shows the city limits of Bremerton and the Kitsap County jurisdiction.
Per state law and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, you may annex property if it is contiguous
to City of Bremerton limits. As the subject properties are not contiguous to the City limits, the
City could not annex this property alone. To make annexation possible, more propertie s would
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, UTILITIES
& ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
need to be included into the annexation area to make this area contiguous to the City of
Bremerton limits.
When reviewing a larger possible annexation area (identified as the Annexation Study Area in
Exhibit 1), annexation analysis using the Petition Method of Annexation was performed. This
commonly used annexation method requires the signatures of property owners representing
60% of the total assessed property value of the area to be in support of the proposed annexation.
This proposed annexation area does not have the required 60% of the total assessed property
value as illustrated here:
Proposed Area includes:
~350 acres; see the Annexation Exhibit for the proposed annexation area.
o 483 parcels;
o Assessed property value of $169,023,410
60% of the total property value needed to finalize the process = $101,414,046
In order to make this annexation viable, the City needs to obtain annexation agreements or
petition signatures with the property owners within this area which equates to about $100
million in assessed property value.
Therefore, if the City received a Petition to Annex from the property owner, this request will
not be successful as the City does not currently have the support of 60% of the total assessed
property values for the properties proposed to be annexed. With the requester petitioning the
City to annex, the City would have 7.2% of the total assessed property values in the area
proposed to be annexed.
Proposed Wastewater Service Extension: In order for the City to provide wastewater service to
the Fisher Plat, the developer will be required to extend the existing sewer service. Per the 2014
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, the project area is within the Trenton Avenue Sewer
Basin service area (“TRT-1”). The preliminary design of the extension that would service the
Fisher Plat is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and sized to accommodate future
development. The extension would include approximately 4,000 feet of 6 -inch force main and
a lift station. Capacity analysis of the existing system suggests that there is capacity in the system
to handle the additional flow at full future build-out.
Fiscal impacts of not providing utility service are:
Not receiving the system extension.
Loss of revenue of approximately $1.5 million in General Facility Charges; and
Loss of approximately $250,000 annually in usage charges.
Summary: As demonstrated in the DCD Annexation Analysis, a significant number of additional
properties are needed to support annexation of this area. As such, Public Works staff consider
annexation as currently infeasible. The City Council must decide in its sole and absolute
discretion whether to provide wastewater service to this property in accordance with BMC
15.03.040 (b)(1) - Annexation Not Feasible.
Exhibit 1: Site Map
Exhibit 2 – Annexation Study
From: Gretchen Ritter-Lopatowski <info@threeleavesdesign.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 1:18 PM
To: Kwalters@kitsap.gov; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council
<City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Public Comment Regarding Fisher Plat Development
To the Bremerton City Council in regard to the proposal of allowing sewer access to the Fisher Plat in
Enetai.
I am a resident of the Enetai Beach Community (on the private Enetai Beach Rd), and though this
proposal of land development doesn’t directly connect to my property, the Fisher forest connects to the
forest on my land, and it connects to my community and will inevitably change the fabric of this peaceful
community.
It’s prety clear that the popular vote is that the community overwhelmingly doesn’t want this sewer
connec�on to happen. These are quiet, peaceful cul-de-sacs, and the City could allow them to become
pass-through streets for a mass development of homes.
Yes, the land is within the Urban Growth Area, but that area was established over 25 years ago, and a lot
has changed in our climate awareness in 25 years. People appreciate green spaces now more than ever
before. Not just for our personal health but for the health of our communi�es, wildlife, and, most
importantly, our planet.
It seems the biggest argument for sewer expansion from the developers was because of the UGA
borders. I have no evidence as to how or why the UGA borders were established back in 1998, but it
seems prety clear that it’s just a blanket over most of East Bremerton. I’m fairly confident that none of
the land typography or exis�ng forests were taken into considera�on when establishing the UGA. Just
because the area was established in this zone doesn’t mean that it should be developed that way -
especially when the voices of the residents who live in the area are begging you to reconsider it.
We all understand that this land will most likely get developed at some point in �me, but it should be
developed with considera�on to the neighbors and landscape upon which it rests. I ask you please, in
your review, to consider the following:
1. If I recall correctly, a council member stated that how the land is developed isn’t a concern of
the City Council but instead for the County to determine. “We’re a u�lity provider like power,
water…” Yes, but currently, the Council has the ability to determine how this land will be
developed by providing them with sewer. So it is, in fact, currently the Council’s job to
determine if this land will be developed to its max capacity or not.
2. By providing the Fisher Plat sewer access, you will be going against the wishes of over 90% of
the residents in this area. The annexa�on survey that was sent received an overwhelming
response that 90% of the residents had no interest in annexing to the city. However, Fisher’s
development could exceed the 60% of the property values in this area required to annex,
effec�vely forcing us all to annex when development is finished. Please consider that 90+% of
residents who requested not to annex and don’t want access to the city sewer system. Those
same residents will be forced to join the city sewer system if something ever happens to their
sep�c. Consider those quiet, peaceful cul-de-sacs you have to trench through to allow this
developer to develop the land to a capacity no one in the area welcomes.
3. Consider the cri�cal zones on this area of land. Consider the water aquifers. Consider the
thousands of animals that have called this land their home for genera�ons. There are bald
eagles and their nests, owls, ospreys, coyotes, deer, foxes, river oters, and poten�ally bears and
cougars. Again, just because this area was zoned for urban growth doesn’t mean that the
planners took into account all of the wildlife that will have nowhere to go when their land is
destroyed. They will be forced into the backyards of those around them, and with less food and
shelter, many will die. I hear the coyotes almost every night in the ravine and forests, I wonder
whose backyard they will go to find food when their home is destroyed.
If the Council doesn’t want to be a part of how this land gets developed, then we ask you to vote no on
approving sewer access to the Fisher Plat. You can then leave it up to the County, which one of you
already said was their responsibility anyway. Don’t provide sewer to them and then tell us that it’s no
longer your problem and we need to deal with the county for complaints. The Council has the power to
dictate at what capacity this land will be developed. Please don’t just look at the botom dollar and extra
income it could earn the city; look to the residents and hear our voices.
Gretchen Ritter-Lopatowski
Owner. Graphic Designer.
THREE LEAVES DESIGN
(m) 619.325.9609
threeleavesdesign.com
Published for
November 1
Council Meeting
ITEM 7A – Public Comments
Fisher Plat - Bremerton City Council on 11/1/2023
Plaƫng Process
Plaƫng Process:
There are dozens and dozens (maybe up to one hundred) specific individual tasks that need to be
performed before a new subdivision is ready for individual home construcƟon.
If approved, the enƟre process will take many, many years
o For example: the failed annexaƟon and sewer capacity analysis have taken 1 ½ years
The following summarizes the general plaƫng process:
From: Blake Hoffer <blakejhoffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 8:19 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Garrett Jackson
<Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle
Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Robert Endsley <Robert.Endsley@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; kwalters@kitsap.gov
Subject: Re: Public Comments - Fisher Plat Project (Blake Hoffer)
Good evening-
There was a misstatement at the study session tonight regarding the proposed density of the
subdivision. It was stated during the meeting that the developer is proposing the lowest density allowed
to them under current zoning (five houses per acre). Per the Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report, Table 1
shows the proposed plat as 27.8 acres making the proposed density by the developer 7 houses per acre.
Blake Hoffer
From: Sarah Palama-Hoffer <sarahpalama@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 6:03 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Kitsapcommissioners@kitsap.gov; Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher sewer extension
Hello and good morning, I was unable to attend the study session but watched the playback early this morning and have a few comments I would like to make. The playback started midway through the discussion on the sewer extension so I plan to discuss with my husband the meeting at length. I am assuming a vote will be made next Wednesday so I wanted to submit my thoughts beforehand so the council was able to have time to perhaps get a better sense of why a majority, if not all of us in the Enetai community are opposed to a city sewer extension at this time. Regarding the actual sewer design, I have had countless questions for Janelle go unanswered regarding by concerns for this design. I assume this is because the engineering team has said this is only a preliminary design and they, meaning city engineers are unable to answer my questions. You can understand how frustrating that is since city council is set to approve a sewer extension on essentially hopes and dreams. In hopes this will help develop the urban growth area while also simultaneously crushing our dreams when we are FORCED to tap into city sewer. Financially this would rob many of us. This subdivision would be uphill from almost every home that will be required to tap into city sewer in the event of septic failure. We would somehow have to get into the extension by pumping our sewer( by means of a mini pump) up hill to even get CLOSE to the extension to then make it into a gravity holding tank to then be carried down the force main 4000ft to the closest city sewer. This would be even more complicated for all our other neighbors on hillside as they are further downhill than us. Is this really the best way to get city sewer to the urban growth area? The initial design may be relatively sound for the subdivision but certainly is not technically sound for anyone that will need to tap into the system. Financially this would be a nightmare for a majority of us in the community and I am assuming a nightmare for the city to maintain. Are we just overlooking how this property is not contiguous to city limits? Most of the other properties that have outside utility agreements are much closer to a city sewer and not pumping 189 PLUS homes through 4000ft of piping to the closest city sewer. Is there a financial impact on the city now? No, and we heard that a lot tonight. “It will make the city money in user fees. He will be paying us and maintenance is paid by the developer”. I think we can acknowledge the builder will be paying in full now but are we certain the city will not be paying for maintenance at some point? This
will be fully on the city to maintain once it’s passed over to city worker hands and historically, user fees almost never cover the entirety of maintenance fees. So where can that extra money come from? Likely the raising of city rate payers fees. This very much feels like a “shiny new penny” situation. The city sees a shiny new penny in this subdivisions. A way to get city sewer to the urban growth area without annexation. You gave the builder two options in 2021 when annexation failed. The two alternatives were what the city felt needed to be done in order for city sewer to make it to the UGA. The developer used neither alternative and hasn’t looked into other alternatives. Now an exception is being made for him circumventing annexation and he will build this extension to the specifics that will benefit HIM and HIS subdivision, NOT the urban growth area as an entirety. So the homes that may not be required to tap in because they are far enough from the subdivision, the city will somehow need to figure out how to tie that portion of city sewer into the already existing uphill extension, further complicating future extensions into the urban growth area. We can all acknowledge that not allowing a development is unlikely. No development all together would be beneficial for the environment, wildlife, and the sheer historical value of this property but private property is private property and even though this property has gone over 100 years undeveloped we are now facing the destruction of untouched old growth. That being said, a simple look at this plat and it is clear that it should had been designated urban restricted when the surrounding areas were rezoned urban restricted 7 years ago. During that rezoning effort in 2016, surrounding areas, OUR TWO PROPERTIES INCLUDED were rezoned to urban restricted. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED OF THIS CHANGE. One of our parcels is an empty lot and is in much better condition that the entire fisher plat and yet the zoning was changed to urban restricted without our knowledge. How was the previous plat owner able to appeal this new designation? Why were we not informed and they somehow, in the veil of night, were able to KEEP this designation? I’ve been asking myself this a lot lately as we just found out 3 weeks ago after looking at archived maps that we were re-zoned UR from UL. A breakdown of the document shows the previous owner said there were no characteristics changes to their plat. They did not live on or near this property. They even went as far as saying rural and urban are two different areas and the new designation was not appropriate because it only applied to rural areas. So because of this appeal and a small boundary line change, a part of their 66 acres was able to retain its urban low density while the other portion was rezoned to urban restricted. A year later, it was purchased by the fishers. Again, I understand this is not something the city deals with because it’s a county issue but we heard a lot from Ned about how we should follow the designation of the county but it’s unfair NOT to point out that the county TRIED to rezone to urban restricted and for some unknown reason, did not require this parcel to follow that redesignation.
I really urge any of you that have not been out to this parcel to come out, look at the surrounding areas and tell me if you think 189 homes on 27.8 acres is appropriate. Drive enetai, rozewood and hillside drive NE. My husband and I would be happy to show you around our two parcels on hillside Dr this at were rezoned to urban restricted. It’s a stark contrast when you can see the plat and our property side by side. An approval of city sewer extension is agreeing that 189 homes is appropriate amount for this area. A lot of different parcel size numbers were being thrown around but 27.8 is the number listed in table 1 of the sewer analysis so based on that number that’s around 7 houses per acre. We really do love this city and community and while we don’t have millions of dollars to throw at a subdivision or fancy engineering firms we whole heartedly just want what is best for our children and our neighbors. A subdivision of this magnitude would be a devastation to this neighborhood. Thank you for your time and please do not hesitate to reach out. We would be happy to show you around. Sincerely, Sarah Hoffer
From: Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:41 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; janelle.hitch@earthlink.net
Subject: FW: Fisher Plat Sewer Extension
City Council, I have reached out to get a perspec�ve from the Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD). John
Kiess is the Environmental Health Director for KPHD and he offered the following response. Please see
below.
Please add this to the public comment sec�on of the agenda packet.
Thank you,
Ned Lever, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Bremerton
ned.lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us
From: John Kiess <John.Kiess@kitsappublichealth.org>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Fisher Plat Sewer Extension
Hello Ned, thank you for reaching out to the Health District. I will try and provide as much informa�on
about applicable wastewater regulatory requirements and both the historic and current work the Health
District is involved with in the Enetai area.
Regarding wastewater disposal requirements, the Health District reviews both land subdivision and
building permit applica�ons for appropriate wastewater disposal that meets the requirements of either
the applicable development code and/or the Kitsap County Board of Health Ordinance 2008A-01 Onsite
Sewage Systems and General Sewage Sanita�on Regula�ons (Regula�ons). To date, there have been no
submitals made to our office for review of the proposed wastewater disposal for the Fisher plat.
Sec�on 6.H. of the Regula�ons addresses sewer connec�on requirements at the �me a sep�c is
determined to be failing. Generally speaking, property owners are required to connect to sewer only
when a failure is determined to be occurring, they cannot install a conforming replacement system, the
sewer system has capacity, and sewer is located within 200 feet of the property. Municipali�es can
adopt other code requirements if they deem it appropriate.
As you men�oned, the Health District was involved with sewer extension discussions with this
community in the past. In both 2005 and 2015, the Health District solicited feedback from the
community on the idea of a U�lity Limited Improvement District (ULID) to extend sewers into the
broader Enetai area to address water quality concerns in Enetai Creek and the number of failed/failing
sep�c systems the Health District had found during its many years of pollu�on inves�ga�on
work. During this �meframe, Enetai Creek failed to meet water quality standards and there were
mul�ple sep�c systems that required correc�on. The community did not express an interest in the LID
and the Health District worked with many property owners over the years to address failures and
replace sep�c systems in the area. This work has been very successful, as Enetai Creek now meets water
quality standards, and has only failed Part 2 of the standard one �me since 2015.
That being said, the larger Enetai area could benefit from sewer expansion in the future as there are
many proper�es with older sep�c systems (average age close to 40 years), a large percentage of small
lots, and some areas with more challenging soils due to soil type or depth. I know the City’s
comprehensive wastewater plan addresses this expansion and it seems logical that the proposed Fisher
plat extension may address part of this future u�lity development.
Please let me know if you have addi�onal ques�ons, thanks.
John Kiess, RS
Environmental Health Director
360-728-2290 office| 360-620-0538 cell | 360-728-2235 main
john.kiess@kitsappublichealth.org | website | social media
From: Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Grant Holdcroft <Grant.Holdcroft@kitsappublichealth.org>; John Kiess
<John.Kiess@kitsappublichealth.org>
Cc: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.Hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher Plat Sewer Extension
The City has received a request for sewer service in the Enetai area east of Trenton Avenue and south of
Sylvan Way. The property is located within the East Bremerton UGA assigned to Bremerton and is
located within our sewer service area. Per the Bremerton Municipal Code proper�es located outside of
the City limits must annex prior to being provided with sewer service. I have provided the code
language below. The City Council is currently considering the request for an excep�on based on
annexa�on being infeasible. The developer pe��oned the neighborhood unsuccessfully and the City
does not have enough proper�es with Outside U�li�es Agreements to move annexa�on forward. I have
also atached the staff presenta�on to council and the annexa�on memo for context.
15.03.040 SERVICE BEYOND CITY LIMITS.
(a) General Policy. It is the general policy of the City of Bremerton that properties located outside the
City limits annex into the City before wastewater utility services are provided to those properties. For
the purpose of this section, "service" means extensions of and/or service connections to City
wastewater utilities to property located outside City limits. "Extension" means to modify, expand, or
extend the existing City wastewater infrastructure such as sewer mains and related appurtenances.
This policy does not apply to water utilities. Exceptions to this policy are set forth in subsection (b) of
this section.
(b) Exceptions. In cases where an owner of property located outside the City limits requests
extension of utility service, the City Council may, in its sole and absolute discretion, provide
wastewater utility services to those properties if the property owner executes an outside utility
agreement pursuant to the provisions set forth in subsection (d) of this section and:
(1) Annexation Not Feasible. In cases where the City Council determines that annexation of a
property located within the City’s urban growth area is not currently feasible; or
(2) Failed Systems. In cases where an existing septic system serving property has failed, and:
(i) The Health District local health official certifies that an existing septic system has
failed and is physically incapable of being repaired or replaced in a manner meeting
applicable health standards; and
(ii) Connection is shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and
the environment; and
(iii) For property located outside an urban growth area, the utility services provided by
the connection are financially sustainable at rural densities and do not permit urban
development pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(4); or
(3) Other Circumstances. In any other circumstances where the City Council determines, at its
sole and absolute discretion, that it is necessary or appropriate to allow the provision of
wastewater utility service.
There is a significant amount of public interest in this issue as the neighbors are not in favor of
development of the property at the current zoning density. The City Council will be deciding whether to
approve or disapprove this service from the City next Wednesday.
I think it would be helpful for Council to have the KPHD perspec�ve regarding a sewer extension in this
area as onsite sep�c systems have been iden�fied as an alterna�ve to sewer service. I know we have
been approached by KPHD in the past to inves�gate the viability of a sewer extension to the Enetai
neighborhood and other unsewered UGA areas. Would you be willing to provide some thoughts on this
issue for the council to include in their considera�on? The council is working very hard to consider all
points of view.
If you can respond to this email prior to next Wednesday I will be sure to include it in the City Council
packet for their considera�on.
Thanks.
Ned Lever, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Bremerton
ned.lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us
From: Terry Bryant <tbryants45@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:16 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fisher Plat off East 30th St
I live off of East 30th St. and attended the meeting on 25 Oct. First, I want to clarify, that I am not anti-
land development when it is done properly within the preview of city, county, state, and federal guidelines.
I also understand, as it was made clear at this meeting, that the plan for development is in the very early
stages with much to do before moving forward. This said, there are some issues that will have to be
mitigated and clarified prior to beginning development of this plat and these are listed below:
1. Roadways in and out of this property: can they handle and support both the equipment and usage
necessary for this development and future use?
2. What about the neighborhoods adjacent to this property regarding the dust and debris stirred-up during
development? The prevailing winds come from the Southwest.
3. How many Doug Fir and Hemlock trees will be cut down and the impact of their removal upon the
existing neighborhoods and wildlife habitat?
4.Can North Perry Water support this development?
5. How much of both the East 30th and Trenton Ave. roadway will have to be torn/dug up to provide
water, power, and sewage for this development?
6. Will this development use septic or sewage? If septic, the perk tests must eliminate any chance of
eventual seepage into Puget Sound.
7. There is a variety of wildlife that live in this forested area, which involve both State Fish and Game and
Federally protected wildlife. Examples: Bald Eagle,
Blue Herons, Red Hawks, Blacktail Deer, Ringneck Pheasants, and Barn Owls (which are Federally
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) as an example.
8. On the Southern end of this property, are there Wet Land issues?
These are just a few concerns that should be noted and properly mitigated and explained prior to
beginning development of this Plat. I, like many others have lived in this
neighborhood for many years (forty-three to be exact) and my wife and I, like others, don't want many of
the reasons why we purchased property here and raised our children here to be radically
changed or possibly eliminated.
Sincerely,
Terry Bryant
From: kathie.lustig@icloud.com <kathie.lustig@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:20 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Sewer Extension - Enetai Resolution 3367 Public Comments 11/1
Attachments available until Dec 1, 2023
Dear Bremerton City Council,
I sincerely hope you all have taken the time to go out to the Enetai parcels and surrounding areas.You
will then see for yourself why the entire community is up and arms about the inappropriately placed
subdivision at such high density on these 2 parcels. To make this decision in a vacuum with blinders on
does not serve the community. Attached you will find the following files that follows a general timeline.
1.2016 Zoning Map re: Comprehensive Plan published March 8, 2016.
2.Cheney Letter dated May 6, 2016 to Planning Supervisor (Cheney_PC_Hearing-May_10_2016)
3.Planning Commission minutes (Minutes 5-1–206)
4.Zoning Map (Commissioner District 3) Amended June 30, 2016.
5.Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan (final)
6.Illahee Community
Plan https://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/PEP%20Documents/Illahee%20Community%20Plan.pdf
The Fisher parcels abut the "Illahee Community Plan" which includes a wildlife corridor along the water.
See Figure 4.7 (page 4-18) that shows the Illahee Community Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Habitat Evaluation. On page 4-16 outlines that Illahee including the former Cheney Estate south of
Illahee has the highest habitat rating. "This is largest and highest habitat rating in the Central Kitsap
and East Bremerton area, and shows the connectivity to another high habitat area, the Cheney Estate
area south of the Illahee community.”
In about June 2014, as part of the Kitsap County 2016 Comprehensive Plan, a request for land use
classification was made. "All requests will be reviewed holistically by the Board of County
Commissioners and evaluated on their consistency with the final Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies. Those requests that move forward will be included in the preliminary
alternatives in 2023 for Environmental Review.” A request was put in for an area-wide rezoning
that included the former Cheney estate and the western portions of Rozewood Estates,
including but not limited to the entire Enetai Beach community going south into Manette. In 2015
leading up to adoption of the Comp Plan, considerable input is made, compiled and prepared for
final adoption.
On March 8, 2016, A zoning map was published that shows the areas being rezoned (lower
right corner). The now Fisher Proposed Plat was a part of the area-wide rezoning from Urban
Low-Residential to Urban Restricted. A several year process was followed and ALL of the
(Cheney Estate) Fisher parcels were rezoned RESTRICTED.
Just weeks before the 2016 Comprehensive Plan was set to be adopted, Ben Cheney (Cheney
Foundation) submitted a letter to County DCD with an attachment showing lot line adjustments
and was essentially an offer of compromise to allow that (2) of the parcels to remain Urban Low.
The matter was heard before the Planning Commissioners on May 10, 2016 (see minutes). I am
in the process of obtaining though a Public records request the recording of the hearing, written
decision and whether there was any additional supporting documentation used as a basis to
support a change beyond this letter. I would have hoped the planning commissioners
considered all the reason why this area-wide rezoning was to be implemented in the first place.
The public was never notified about the decision to reverse the decision to rezone these two
parcels back to Urban Low.
This last minute change, out of the public eye is suspicious to say the least. In fact, all the
property owners whose parcels were rezoned to Restricted apparently were only notified by a
possible posting in the local newspaper? The county claims they met
notification guidelines pursuant to state law. Residents of the eastern boundary of Rozewood
Estates are only now finding out (7) years later their properties were rezoned. What’s wrong
with this picture? Does this feel right to you? The circumstances leading up to this point (sewer
extension request) justifies the community uproar because it holds an improper zoning
designation. We all know this parcel is NOT suitable for a subdivision of
the proposed density. Just days ago, while walking with a wildlife biologist, we heard the calls
of bald eagles that nest there. Can you really justify voting to allow destruction of this wildlife
habitat? You are a cog in the wheel and a YES vote to allow this will open the door to
this destruction.
Illahee Aquifer protection plan (see attached) developed by Parametrix Consulting Engineers
for Illahee contains an extensive evaluation of the Manette Peninsula. The report, in part
includes the Fisher parcel. Main points within the report recommend:
A.2.1. Limit future groundwater withdrawal from areas within and adjacent to the Illahee Creek
watershed
A.2.4 Require or encourage low-impact development to help maintain or improve groundwater
recharge rates and base flow conditions
A.2.7 Support the development of a groundwater model for the Manette Peninsula
Regional groundwater models provide useful tools for water resources management. No model
has been developed for simulating flow conditions and impacts on the Manette Peninsula. A
groundwater model similar to what has been developed for the western portions of Kitsap
County by the U.S. Geological Survey (van Heeswijk and Smith, 2002) is needed to help manage
groundwater resources on the Manette Peninsula
B.1.3 Amount of groundwater extraction on the Manette Peninsula
AGI (1997) estimated that groundwater withdrawal on the Manette Peninsula in 1997 was
approximately 6,000 to 7,000 acre-feet/year. They estimated that approximately one-half of this
amount (3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year) was withdrawn from wells completed in the deeper aquifers and
that the remaining one-half was withdrawn from wells completed in the more shallow surficial and
upland aquifers (AGI, 1997a, p. 8.3). Based on a comparison between groundwater recharge and 1997
groundwater withdrawal, AGI concluded that 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year was discharging to Puget
Sound or deeper aquifers (AGI, 1997, p. 5.3).
Ecology issued Reports of Examination (ROE’s) in 2001 that allow NPAWD Well 14 to be an additional
point of withdrawal for the certificated rights associated with NPAWD’s Gilberton and Center Street
wells. The 2001 Ecology decisions on Well 14 were based in part on an assumed available groundwater
yield for the Manette Peninsula in 2001 of 4,000 acre-feet/year (Ecology, 2001, ROE for G1-23075C,
page 8). According to Ecology, this estimate of available groundwater yield was based on the 1997 AGI
report.
The water balance produced through the WRIA 15 watershed planning process (Golder, 2005) suggests
that the groundwater system on the Manette Peninsula is likely over-allocated. For example, NPAWD
claims water rights that add to over 4,000 acre-feet per year (Ecology, 2008, ROE for Certificate 2865,
Table 3, page 8). These rights alone exceed the estimated deep groundwater recharge rate of 3,100
acre-feet per year developed by Golder (2005). In addition, the City of Bremerton holds water rights
certificates authorizing the extraction of 1,888 acre-feet per year from their Wells 13 and 14 on the
Manette Peninsula (City of Bremerton, 2006).
Observed aquifer water level declines in the aquifer tapped by NPAWD’s Perry Avenue and
Pickering Street wells also suggest that portions of the groundwater system may be over-
allocated.
SEPTIC SEWER ANALYSIS
I think other residents will be commenting on more technical issues related to septic vs sewer.
Sewer in this area isn’t necessarily better. Septics allow for recharge of groundwater. Sewer
does not and gets discharged into the puget sound albeit it is treated. According to KPHD, there
hasn’t been any septic failures in this area for many years due to KPHD efforts and
improvement of water quality in Enetai Creek has significantly improved. I do not believe that
this gravity sewer design would meet the long-term needs of the Rozewood Estates subdivision
if residents are forced to hook up. For instance, with the sewer main going up Helm, myself and
adjacent neighbors on Rozewood Drive would be required to hook via a lateral connection. It is
downhill from the main. How is that supposed to go back up to the main in a gravity system? It
would require another pump station located at the bottom of Rozewood directly adjacent to
Enetai Creek at my neighbors house. Is this really feasible? Who would be paying for that pump
station in the future? Long-term implications need to be considered and studies done before
approving TEAM4 design.
Approving this sewer extension request is premature. The community which is highly impacted
by this, has had very short notice to respond. We need more time to gather information. I
sincerely hope the City Council will give us that time and put this request on PAUSE allowing for
everyone, including the City Council to perform due diligence on this request.
It may be time to consider Parametrix recommendation that a Groundwater Model be developed
for the Manette Peninsula? An Illahee- Enetai Community Plan? I am in ongoing discussions
with the Illahee community to develop a collaborative effort to work towards that goal.
Sincerely
Kathie Lustig
BurkeBay
Phinney
Bay
P
o
rt
dIllahee State Park
Tracyton
Gilberton
University
Point
Bass
Point
Rocky
Point
Battle
Point
Brownsville
Illahee
NN
EE
Tracyton Boulevard NWTracyton Boulevard NWNE McWilliams RoadNE McWilliams Road
ucklin Hill Roaducklin Hill Road
NE Riddell RoadNE Riddell Road Ogl
eRoadNECentral Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadPerry Avenue NEPerry Avenue NERocky Point Road NWRocky Point Road NWdd NN WW
NE Sylvan WayNE Sylvan Way
NE Winston Drive
Diane Court NENelson Road NENelson Road NETrenton Avenue NETrenton Avenue NEFFiirrDDrriivveeNNEEe NIIllllaahheeee
RR
oo
aa
ddNNEETTrraaccyytt
oonnBBeeaa
cc
hhRR
oo
aa
dd
NN
WWHolland Road NWNE Bah
i
aVistaDrLeb
o
B
o
ule
v
a
r
d
Leb
o
B
o
ule
v
a
r
d NNEEPP
aa
uullssoonn RRooaadd
NE 30th StreetNE 30th StreetOlympus Drive NENW Fairgrounds RoadNW Fairgrounds Road OldOld NE John Carlson RoadNE John Carlson Road
RR
oo
aaddRickey RoadStampede Boulevard NWStampede Boulevard NWAlmira Drive NEheaton Way WNwHope Street
NW Silver Street
NE Fuson Road
Almira Drive NENE Pearle StreetNE Pearle StreetCorey Lane NECorey Lane NENW Selbo Road
NE Winters Road
N E C o n if e r D riv
eN EW il l i a m u t t o n Road S
Sunset Avenue NESunset Avenue NERest Place NENNEE MMaaddiissoonn RRooaadd
Sandy Road NENE 3rd Street NNE 3rd Street NCourtney Lane NECourtney Lane NETowne R o a d N E
TNW Nichols Avenue Sandra Lane NEWW
a lke r R o a d
Worrall Dr
NE Echo Drive
N E S ip e s L a
neNE 72nd Street
NE Dawn Road
NE Hyak WayJubilee Lane NWNW Heritage Ln
Robinson Rd NENE Robbie Court
Almira DriveFern Avenue NENW Sigurd Hanson Road
NW Chrey Lane
26th Street S
NE Normandy Dr
NW Joels Cour t
Petersville Road NEPetersville Road NENorth Forest Dr NEIIllllaahheeeeRRooaadd NN EEOOllddMMiilliittaarryyRRooaaddNNEE
Central Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadOld Military Road NEOld Military Road NEvvaarrddNNWWMari
g
o
l
d
DriveNW
H i llsboro Driv eN
W
NW Palmer Lane
NE Watson CourtNelslson Road NENE Foster RoadNE Foster Road
NE Conifer Drive
NE Conifer DriveRoyal Valley Road NERingstad Lane NENE Arrowhead Drive Navajo Trail NENavajo Trail NEWembly Av NEClover Blossom Ln NEMadrona Ave NEIllahee Road NEBlackbird Dr NENEM cW illiamsCourtNE Dawn Road
NE Franklin Avenue
NE Vena StNE Vena St
NW Tracy Av
Naomi Street NWMariah Lane NE Corfu Blvd NENW 73rd St
NE Rose LaneTibardis Road NWN E S at u r n ) LaneNWBarkerCreekRdMonte VistaLane NWNW Chena Road
Bunker Street SSylvan Way WSylvan Way W
AppaloosaWayNEPine Road NENE 31st St
Sheridan RoadSheridan RoadRobin AvEagle AvHanford AvNE Pinewood Dr
Halverson Avenueey BlvdNE Helm Street
Stone Way W Ridgeview Dr NEViewcrest Dr NEPine Avenue NENW BridleR idge B l v d
etaiB e a c h R o a dCherryAvenueCallahanDrive
eeNArmstrong Lane NEKelly Court NEKari Lane NWPayne Ln NW
NW Mosher Canyon Road
hurst
Cortez P laceNWFox RunNW Tibardis Road
Red Oaks Ct
ad
NW Sherwood Street
NW Wrangler Court
Parkdale Drive NW
F i r Gla d e DriveNWBridlevale Blvd NW
Orrfelt DriveHar
vard
C
t
NW Fairwood Way
N WSa n JuanDr
Oak Park PLNE Buckeye Lane
NE Mulberry Lane
NESilverP ineDriveN E C o t t o n wood Drive
V a l l e y O ak Drive
NE Silver Pine Drive
NE
Redbud Lane
FalconPlaceNENE Regal Court
Graceland Road NENE Bentley Drive
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
L
a
n
e
N
E
Johnson Road NENEEtonLane
WellingtonLaneNEN
E
M
eadowlark C i r cleLazySL
a
n
e
N
ENE Shady Lane
Troy Lane NE
TroyLaneN E
NE Treemont Court
NEGoldenRodAvenue
Thasos Avenue NEAegean Blvd NEAegean Blvd NENESh
effi
e
l
d
P
lac e
HelenaDriveNENE Athens Way
Suns et A v en u e N E
TricaAvenueNEGrevenaAvenueNENE
Q
uinaul tDriveHick Avenue NEEast Blvd NEVarsity Lane NEWashington Street NE5th Avenue NENE Arizona StreetRoanokeRoadNE
NE Utah
StreetHamling Lane NWNW Westmont Lane
St Johns Place NE
HillriseCourtNECovina Loop NE
N E C o coCourt Steele Creek Loop NENE Magnum Court
Sungate Place NELazy S Lane NEKaster Drive NEOxbow Avenue NEForestRidgeD
riv
e
Spa rtacusStreetDelphiL
o
o
pNEUniversityPoin t Circle NE
Lewis Drive NEN E D erekDriveNELuxuryLan e
NE Roosevelt Street
NE Nobles Lane
N Olympus Drive NENE Cheryl Street
Forest Drive NENE Ivy Road
SpruceA v e n u e
Harbel Drive NENE Ivy Road
Hollis Street
NE 40t h Place
NE David Drive
NW Essex Street
N E P in e cre s t D r iv e
N E W o odsPlace
NE Teri CourtNW Eells Road
NW Paxford Lane
NW Holmberg Street NE Be
a
um
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Gateway Lane NENE Michelle Court
NE Marric Court
NE Rim Rock Drive
PainterStreet NWHartStreet NWSilverBeachDriveNWDa
r
ling
R
oa
d
N
W BroncoPlaceNWSkyview Place NWNW Creekside Lane
Sycamore Ln NENE Beaumont Ln
NE Sutton Pl
NE Melanie Ct
NE Tracy Ave
Benit
aPlNENEClearvie
wLnNE Roswell DrTracyt
o
n
BlvdNW
NW Vermont Ln
NW Huckle DrFredrickson Rd NWRichardson Rd NWSpinn akerBlvd
N
WOlson Rd NWN
W
M
a
hog
any L
n
NW Hogan Ln
NW 1st St
Sunrise Ter NEOlive Ave NEOc
e
a
n
V
i
e
wB
l
v
dNENEShoreCliffStRegattaPlNE
NE School StreetNWI ONHSAGT
SIKT A P YUCONT
Kitsap County Department of Community Development
614 Division Street, MS-36, Port Orchard, Washington 98366
VOICE (360) 337-5777 * FAX (360) 337-4925 Central KitsapPreferred Alternative - Zoning ChangesLegend
Designated Urban Growth Areas
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area
Incorporated City
Kitsap County Zoning Designations
Rural Residential (1 DU/5 Ac)
Rural Protection (1 DU/10 Ac)
Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Commercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Regional Center (10-30 DU/Ac)
Rural Commercial
Urban Restricted (1-5 DU/Ac)
Greenbelt (1-4 DU/Ac)
Urban Low Residential (5-9 DU/Ac)
Urban Cluster Residential (5-9 DU/Ac)
Urban Medium Residential (10-18 DU/Ac)
Urban High Residential (19-30 DU/Ac)
Park
Incorporated City
This map was created from existing map sources, not from field surveys. Determination of fitness for use lies with the user,
as does the responsiblity for understanding the accuracy and limitations of this map and data.
The information on this map may have been collected from various sources and can change over time without notice.
While great care was taken in making this map, there is no guarantee or warranty of its accuracy as to labeling,
placement or location of any geographic features present. This map is intended for informational purposes only and is not a
substitute for a field survey.
Kitsap County and its officials and employees assume no responsibility or legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, reliability,
or timeliness of any information on this map.
Published Date: March 8, 2016 Hansville Road NEBanner Road SEClear Creek Road NWSE Mullenix Road Dewatto Road WSW Pine Road SE Nelson Road
SE Mile Hill Drive
NW Newberry Hill Road Tracyton Blvd NWSE Burley Olalla Road
NE Lincoln Road Silverdale Way NWJackson Avenue SERidgetop
Boulevard
IllaheeRoadNE
SW Lake Helena Road
S ea b ec k-HollyRoadNWSe
abe
ckHig
hway
NW
NW Hol ly Ro ad
NE McWilliams Road
NETwinSpitsRoadSouth
Hansville
Road
NEHoodCan
al
Drive
NE
NEEglonRoad
MillerBayRoad NESouthKin gst onRoadNE
NW Pioneer Hill R d
NE Gunderson Road
NE SawdustHill Road
Sy lva n Way
Perry Ave NESheridan RoadPine Road NENE Riddell Road
KitsapWay
W Bel fair ValleyRoad
SW OldCliftonRoad
SunnyslopeRoadSWSWLakeFlora Ro ad PhillipsRoadSENWAnderson
HillRoad
NE H os tm ark Street
NW Bucklin Hill Rd Chico Way NWNW Finn Hill Road Lofall Rd NWOlallaValleyRoadSE
SWLakeFloraRoad
Se ab eck H igh way NW BigValleyRoadN EPhelps Road NEOlympicViewR
oad
N
WLiderRoadSW SE LongLakeRoadSE SESouthworthDriveWheaton WayBrownsvilleHighwayNESW Wildwood Road
SW Berry Lake Rd ColchesterDriveEGoldCreekRoadW Wy att St r eet
EagleHarborDriveBla
kely AvenueSunrise Drive NEN Madison Avenue NEFairgrounds Road
SE Lake Boulevard Woods Road SENETottenRoad
BigValleyRo
adN
EJ. M. Dickenson Road SWVikingWayNW
NE Lincol nRoadGlenwood Road SWSidney Road SWBeach Drive ESE Sedgwick RoadNoll Road NEAugusta Ave NEStottlemeyer Road NEMiller Bay Road NECentral Valley Road
Chico Way NW
PioneerWay NW
Illahee Road NEIn
dia
nola
Roa
dNE
NE Lafay ett e Av e
NE Kingston Road
MillerRoadNE
High School Road NE
Ericksen Ave NEManitouBeachDrNE
Bethel Road SESEOlallaValleyRoadBlakeIslandGorst
Hansville
Port
Silverdale
Bremerton
Poulsbo
Kingston
BainbridgeIsland
PortOrchard
Seabeck
Naval SubmarineBase Bangor
Four Corners
StriebelsCorner
BREMERTONNATIONALAIRPORT
00.250.50.7510.125
Miles
DRAFT
BurkeBay
Phinney
Bay
P
o
rt
dIllahee State Park
Tracyton
Gilberton
University
Point
Bass
Point
Rocky
Point
Battle
Point
Brownsville
Illahee
NN
EE
Tracyton Boulevard NWTracyton Boulevard NWNE McWilliams RoadNE McWilliams Road
ucklin Hill Roaducklin Hill Road
NE Riddell RoadNE Riddell Road Ogl
eRoadNECentral Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadPerry Avenue NEPerry Avenue NERocky Point Road NWRocky Point Road NWdd NN WW
NE Sylvan WayNE Sylvan Way
NE Winston Drive
Diane Court NENelson Road NENelson Road NETrenton Avenue NETrenton Avenue NEFFiirrDDrriivveeNNEEe NIIllllaahheeee
RR
oo
aa
ddNNEETTrraaccyytt
oonnBBeeaa
cc
hhRR
oo
aa
dd
NN
WWHolland Road NWNE Bah
i
aVistaDrLeb
o
B
o
ule
v
a
r
d
Leb
o
B
o
ule
v
a
r
d NNEEPP
aa
uullssoonn RRooaadd
NE 30th StreetNE 30th StreetOlympus Drive NENW Fairgrounds RoadNW Fairgrounds Road OldOld NE John Carlson RoadNE John Carlson Road
RR
oo
aaddRickey RoadStampede Boulevard NWStampede Boulevard NWAlmira Drive NEheaton Way WNwHope Street
NW Silver Street
NE Fuson Road
Almira Drive NENE Pearle StreetNE Pearle StreetCorey Lane NECorey Lane NENW Selbo Road
NE Winters Road
N E C o n if e r D riv
eN EW il l i a m u t t o n Road S
Sunset Avenue NESunset Avenue NERest Place NENNEE MMaaddiissoonn RRooaadd
Sandy Road NENE 3rd Street NNE 3rd Street NCourtney Lane NECourtney Lane NETowne R o a d N E
TNW Nichols Avenue Sandra Lane NEWW
a lke r R o a d
Worrall Dr
NE Echo Drive
N E S ip e s L a
neNE 72nd Street
NE Dawn Road
NE Hyak WayJubilee Lane NWNW Heritage Ln
Robinson Rd NENE Robbie Court
Almira DriveFern Avenue NENW Sigurd Hanson Road
NW Chrey Lane
26th Street S
NE Normandy Dr
NW Joels Cour t
Petersville Road NEPetersville Road NENorth Forest Dr NEIIllllaahheeeeRRooaadd NN EEOOllddMMiilliittaarryyRRooaaddNNEE
Central Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadOld Military Road NEOld Military Road NEvvaarrddNNWWMari
g
o
l
d
DriveNW
H i llsboro Driv eN
W
NW Palmer Lane
NE Watson CourtNelslson Road NENE Foster RoadNE Foster Road
NE Conifer Drive
NE Conifer DriveRoyal Valley Road NERingstad Lane NENE Arrowhead Drive Navajo Trail NENavajo Trail NEWembly Av NEClover Blossom Ln NEMadrona Ave NEIllahee Road NEBlackbird Dr NENEM cW illiamsCourtNE Dawn Road
NE Franklin Avenue
NE Vena StNE Vena St
NW Tracy Av
Naomi Street NWMariah Lane NE Corfu Blvd NENW 73rd St
NE Rose LaneTibardis Road NWN E S at u r n ) LaneNWBarkerCreekRdMonte VistaLane NWNW Chena Road
Bunker Street SSylvan Way WSylvan Way W
AppaloosaWayNEPine Road NENE 31st St
Sheridan RoadSheridan RoadRobin AvEagle AvHanford AvNE Pinewood Dr
Halverson Avenueey BlvdNE Helm Street
Stone Way W Ridgeview Dr NEViewcrest Dr NEPine Avenue NENW BridleR idge B l v d
etaiB e a c h R o a dCherryAvenueCallahanDrive
eeNArmstrong Lane NEKelly Court NEKari Lane NWPayne Ln NW
NW Mosher Canyon Road
hurst
Cortez P laceNWFox RunNW Tibardis Road
Red Oaks Ct
ad
NW Sherwood Street
NW Wrangler Court
Parkdale Drive NW
F i r Gla d e DriveNWBridlevale Blvd NW
Orrfelt DriveHar
vard
C
t
NW Fairwood Way
N WSa n JuanDr
Oak Park PLNE Buckeye Lane
NE Mulberry Lane
NESilverP ineDriveN E C o t t o n wood Drive
V a l l e y O ak Drive
NE Silver Pine Drive
NE
Redbud Lane
FalconPlaceNENE Regal Court
Graceland Road NENE Bentley Drive
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
L
a
n
e
N
E
Johnson Road NENEEtonLane
WellingtonLaneNEN
E
M
eadowlark C i r cleLazySL
a
n
e
N
ENE Shady Lane
Troy Lane NE
TroyLaneN E
NE Treemont Court
NEGoldenRodAvenue
Thasos Avenue NEAegean Blvd NEAegean Blvd NENESh
effi
e
l
d
P
lac e
HelenaDriveNENE Athens Way
Suns et A v en u e N E
TricaAvenueNEGrevenaAvenueNENE
Q
uinaul tDriveHick Avenue NEEast Blvd NEVarsity Lane NEWashington Street NE5th Avenue NENE Arizona StreetRoanokeRoadNE
NE Utah
StreetHamling Lane NWNW Westmont Lane
St Johns Place NE
HillriseCourtNECovina Loop NE
N E C o coCourt Steele Creek Loop NENE Magnum Court
Sungate Place NELazy S Lane NEKaster Drive NEOxbow Avenue NEForestRidgeD
riv
e
Spa rtacusStreetDelphiL
o
o
pNEUniversityPoin t Circle NE
Lewis Drive NEN E D erekDriveNELuxuryLan e
NE Roosevelt Street
NE Nobles Lane
N Olympus Drive NENE Cheryl Street
Forest Drive NENE Ivy Road
SpruceA v e n u e
Harbel Drive NENE Ivy Road
Hollis Street
NE 40t h Place
NE David Drive
NW Essex Street
N E P in e cre s t D r iv e
N E W o odsPlace
NE Teri CourtNW Eells Road
NW Paxford Lane
NW Holmberg Street NE Be
a
um
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Gateway Lane NENE Michelle Court
NE Marric Court
NE Rim Rock Drive
PainterStreet NWHartStreet NWSilverBeachDriveNWDa
r
ling
R
oa
d
N
W BroncoPlaceNWSkyview Place NWNW Creekside Lane
Sycamore Ln NENE Beaumont Ln
NE Sutton Pl
NE Melanie Ct
NE Tracy Ave
Benit
aPlNENEClearvie
wLnNE Roswell DrTracyt
o
n
BlvdNW
NW Vermont Ln
NW Huckle DrFredrickson Rd NWRichardson Rd NWSpinn akerBlvd
N
WOlson Rd NWN
W
M
a
hog
any L
n
NW Hogan Ln
NW 1st St
Sunrise Ter NEOlive Ave NEOc
e
a
n
V
i
e
wB
l
v
dNENEShoreCliffStRegattaPlNE
NE School StreetNWI ONHSAGT
SIKT A P YUCONT
Kitsap County Department of Community Development
614 Division Street, MS-36, Port Orchard, Washington 98366
VOICE (360) 337-5777 * FAX (360) 337-4925 Central Kitsap Urban Growth AreaPreferred AlternativeLegend
Designated Urban Growth Areas
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area
Incorporated City
Kitsap County Zoning Designations
Rural Residential (1 DU/5 Ac)
Rural Protection (1 DU/10 Ac)
Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Commercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Regional Center (10-30 DU/Ac)
Rural Commercial
Urban Restricted (1-5 DU/Ac)
Greenbelt (1-4 DU/Ac)
Urban Low Residential (5-9 DU/Ac)
Urban Cluster Residential (5-9 DU/Ac)
Urban Medium Residential (10-18 DU/Ac)
Urban High Residential (19-30 DU/Ac)
Park
Incorporated City
This map was created from existing map sources, not from field surveys. Determination of fitness for use lies with the user,
as does the responsiblity for understanding the accuracy and limitations of this map and data.
The information on this map may have been collected from various sources and can change over time without notice.
While great care was taken in making this map, there is no guarantee or warranty of its accuracy as to labeling,
placement or location of any geographic features present. This map is intended for informational purposes only and is not a
substitute for a field survey.
Kitsap County and its officials and employees assume no responsibility or legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, reliability,
or timeliness of any information on this map.
Published Date: March 8, 2016 Hansville Road NEBanner Road SEClear Creek Road NWSE Mullenix Road Dewatto Road WSW Pine Road SE Nelson Road
SE Mile Hill Drive
NW Newberry Hill Road Tracyton Blvd NWSE Burley Olalla Road
NE Lincoln Road Silverdale Way NWJackson Avenue SERidgetop
Boulevard
IllaheeRoadNE
SW Lake Helena Road
S ea b ec k-HollyRoadNWSe
abe
ckHig
hway
NW
NW Hol ly Ro ad
NE McWilliams Road
NETwinSpitsRoadSouth
Hansville
Road
NEHoodCan
al
Drive
NE
NEEglonRoad
MillerBayRoad NESouthKin gst onRoadNE
NW Pioneer Hill R d
NE Gunderson Road
NE SawdustHill Road
Sy lva n Way
Perry Ave NESheridan RoadPine Road NENE Riddell Road
KitsapWay
W Bel fair ValleyRoad
SW OldCliftonRoad
SunnyslopeRoadSWSWLakeFlora Ro ad PhillipsRoadSENWAnderson
HillRoad
NE H os tm ark Street
NW Bucklin Hill Rd Chico Way NWNW Finn Hill Road Lofall Rd NWOlallaValleyRoadSE
SWLakeFloraRoad
Se ab eck H igh way NW BigValleyRoadN EPhelps Road NEOlympicViewR
oad
N
WLiderRoadSW SE LongLakeRoadSE SESouthworthDriveWheaton WayBrownsvilleHighwayNESW Wildwood Road
SW Berry Lake Rd ColchesterDriveEGoldCreekRoadW Wy att St r eet
EagleHarborDriveBla
kely AvenueSunrise Drive NEN Madison Avenue NEFairgrounds Road
SE Lake Boulevard Woods Road SENETottenRoad
BigValleyRo
adN
EJ. M. Dickenson Road SWVikingWayNW
NE Lincol nRoadGlenwood Road SWSidney Road SWBeach Drive ESE Sedgwick RoadNoll Road NEAugusta Ave NEStottlemeyer Road NEMiller Bay Road NECentral Valley Road
Chico Way NW
PioneerWay NW
Illahee Road NEIn
dia
nola
Roa
dNE
NE Lafay ett e Av e
NE Kingston Road
MillerRoadNE
High School Road NE
Ericksen Ave NEManitouBeachDrNE
Bethel Road SESEOlallaValleyRoadBlakeIslandGorst
Hansville
Port
Silverdale
Bremerton
Poulsbo
Kingston
BainbridgeIsland
PortOrchard
Seabeck
Naval SubmarineBase Bangor
Four Corners
StriebelsCorner
BREMERTONNATIONALAIRPORT
00.250.50.7510.125
Miles
DRAFT
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan
Prepared for
Port of Illahee
P.O. Box 2357
Bremerton, WA 98310
Illahee Forest Preserve
5940 Illahee Road
Bremerton, WA 98311-9625
Prepared by
Keta Waters LLC
6520 East Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
www.KetaWaters.com
and
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
425-458-6200
www.parametrix.com
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page ii
A. Introduction 1
A.1 Purpose and overview 1
A.2 Summary of projects and activities to improve
or protect groundwater resources 1
A.3 Summary of findings and conclusions 3
B. Estimates of Groundwater Recharge 8
B.1 Groundwater balances on the Manette Peninsula 8
B.2 Groundwater balances within the Illahee Creek watershed 11
C. Hydrogeologic Conditions 18
C.1 Overview of the groundwater flow system 18
C.2 Aquifer and confining unit characteristics 19
C.3 Effects of groundwater extraction in leaky aquifers 23
C.4 Estimates of leakage factors for the Manette Peninsula 26
D. Flow impacts from land use and groundwater extraction wells 27
D.1 Land use impacts on base flow in Illahee Creek 27
D.2 Water supply impacts on base flow in Illahee Creek 28
D.3 Impacts of reduced base flow on temperatures in Illahee Creek 29
E. Flow and water quality impacts from septic systems 31
F. Recommended Strategies 33
References 36
List of Figures
B.1 Illahee Creek Watershed
C.1 Conceptual hydrogeologic section, Kitsap County, Washington.
C.2 Hydrogeologic unit labels and terminology used in groundwater studies in Kitsap
County
C.3 Curves showing influence areas for wells in leaky aquifer systems
List of Tables
B.1 Example water balances for the Manette Peninsula. All values are given in units of
inches per year, unless otherwise noted.
B.2 Estimated groundwater discharge as percentage of long-term average recharge
under predevelopment conditions (from van Heeswijk, and Smith, 2002)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page iii
B.3 Observed aquifer water level declines in the aquifer tapped by the Perry and
Pickering wells. All water level values are in feet.
B.4 Summary of watershed characteristics (from Kitsap County Department of
Community Development, 2002)
B.5 Comparison of Water Balances under Natural and Existing Conditions (from
Kitsap County Department of Community Development, 2002)
B.6 Equations for estimating annual recharge to ground water from annual precipitation
for different soil and land-cover groups (from Bidlake and Payne, 2001]
B.7 Comparison of watersheds used to develop Bidlake and Payne equations with
Illahee Creek watershed.
B.8 Estimates of groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek watershed based on Bidlake
and Payne (2001) equations
B.9 Comparison of estimates of groundwater recharge in Illahee Creek watershed
B.10 Measured low-flows in the Illahee Creek watershed
C.1 Horizontal hydraulic conductivity values in ft/day from Kahle (1998)
C.2 Hydraulic conductivity values in ft/day from van Heeswijk and Smith (2002)
C.3 Hydrogeologic properties of aquifer and confining units of relevance to the impacts
from wells in the Illahee Creek watershed. Based on van Heeswijk and Smith
(2002) and Kahle (1998)
D.1 Estimates of change in groundwater recharge rates associated with changes in
urban areas based on equations from Bidlake and Payne (2001)
E.1 Estimates of allowable number of houses on septic systems for different
combinations of natural groundwater recharge rates and allowable nitrate
concentrations
Appendices
A Water Rights
B Group A and Group B Water Rights
C Normalized drawdowns observed during a 60-day pumping test at NPAWD well 14
D Equations used to develop impact curves for leaky aquifer systems
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 1
A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The overall objective of the Illahee Creek aquifer protection plan is to identify specific
measures to protect and enhance groundwater resources in the Illahee Creek watershed.
These protection and enhancement measures relate to both groundwater quality and
groundwater quantity and specifically focus on the role of groundwater in supporting
stream flow in Illahee Creek.
The aquifer protection plan was developed by first compiling and integrating existing
hydrogeologic data and information. These data and information were used to develop
estimates of groundwater recharge (Section B) and to describe the general hydrogeologic
conditions within and adjacent to the Illahee Creek watershed (Section C). The impacts
of groundwater extraction wells and land use changes on groundwater conditions within
the Illahee Creek watershed are described in Section D. These estimated impacts are
based on the recharge and hydrogeologic conditions described in Sections B and C. The
impacts of septic systems on groundwater quality and groundwater quantity are
specifically considered in Section E. Recommended strategies for enhancing and
protection groundwater resources in the Illahee Creek watershed are presented in Section
F.
A.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE OR
PROTECT GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The set of projects and activities presented below would enhance and/or protect
groundwater conditions in the Illahee Creek watershed. These projects and activities,
which are aimed at protecting shallow aquifer recharge and groundwater contributions to
stream flow, are based on the groundwater conditions and hydrogeologic characteristics
summarized in Section A.3 and described in more detail in Sections B through E.
A.2.1. Limit future groundwater withdrawal from areas within and adjacent to the
Illahee Creek watershed
Available data suggest that groundwater resources on the Manette Peninsula and within
the Illahee Creek watershed may be over-allocated. These data include estimated aquifer
recharge rates developed by Golder (2005) and estimated groundwater rights derived
from the Washington Department of Ecology databases. The amount of groundwater
rights that have been issued for deeper wells equals or exceeds the estimated groundwater
recharge rates for the aquifers in which they are completed. These existing water rights
have not yet been fully developed. If they are fully developed in the future, groundwater
inflow to streams on the Manette Peninsula, including Illahee Creek, will likely be
reduced.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 2
A.2.2. Encourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation
The two largest groundwater rights within the Illahee Creek watershed are held by the
North Perry Avenue Water District (0.53 cfs) and the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (0.3 cfs). These water rights exceed the estimated baseflow to Illahee Creek.
The water right listed for the Washington Department of Natural Resources is located on
the golf course and the purpose of use is for irrigation of 100 acres. Reclaimed water
may provide an alternative source for irrigation water and may allow reduced
groundwater extraction in the watershed.
A.2.3 Allow direct stream flow augmentation if other mitigation options for
groundwater extraction are not feasible
Groundwater extraction within and adjacent to the Illahee Creek watershed by the North
Perry Avenue Water District (NPAWD) likely increases groundwater recharge to deep
aquifers and decreases groundwater discharge to Illahee Creek. One approach for
mitigating impacts to stream flow is to augment flow by direct discharge to the stream
channel. This approach, in which the augmentation water is obtained from the municipal
water supply system, has been termed “pump to dump.” Although this approach may not
be optimal in terms of mimicking groundwater inflow to Illahee Creek, it can be used to
increase base flow in the absence of other mitigation options.
A.2.4 Require or encourage low-impact development to help maintain or improve
groundwater recharge rates and base flow conditions
Groundwater recharge rates in the Illahee Creek watershed have likely been reduced
through development within the basin. The estimated reduction in recharge as compared
to pre-development conditions is approximately 20% or 0.2 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Low impact development practices can maintain or improve groundwater recharge rates.
These practices include minimizing or reducing impervious surfaces and encouraging
small-scale infiltration practices such as dispersion trenches for roof drains.
A.2.5 Increase groundwater recharge using near-surface infiltration facilities
Increased groundwater recharge may be accomplished in selected areas through near-
surface infiltration facilities. Source water for these facilities may be derived from
reclaimed water and stormwater. Challenges associated with this measure include
identifying geologically-suitable areas for near-surface groundwater recharge. Areas
with absent or thin till layers and with depths to groundwater more than approximately 40
feet would be preferred. Locations in the southwestern and northwestern portions of the
watershed may be suitable.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 3
A.2.6 Evaluate the feasibility of increasing groundwater recharge using deeper
groundwater injection facilities
Increased groundwater recharge could also be accomplished through deeper injection
facilities such as injection wells. The source water for these wells would need to meet a
higher water quality standard than the near-surface facilities identified above. Injection
wells may be appropriate in some locations. These wells must be designed and operated
in a manner to prevent degradation of water quality and would likely be appropriate only
for water or wastewater utilities.
A.2.7 Support the development of a groundwater model for the Manette Peninsula
Regional groundwater models provide useful tools for water resources management. No
model has been developed for simulating flow conditions and impacts on the Manette
Peninsula. A groundwater model similar to what has been developed for the western
portions of Kitsap County by the U.S. Geological Survey (van Heeswijk and Smith,
2002) is needed to help manage groundwater resources on the Manette Peninsula.
A.2.8 Investigate the feasibility of transferring existing surface water rights into the
Department of Ecology’s Trust Water Rights Program (TWRP)
Surface water rights have been issued for streams and springs within and adjacent to the
Illahee Creek watershed. These surface water rights are approximately equal to the
estimated base flow in Illahee Creek. The two largest surface water rights are held by the
Illahee Improvement Club (0.3 cfs) and R.L. Shutt (0.23 cfs). The actual use and validity
of these surface water rights have not been determined. If the surface water rights are
valid, it would be prudent to investigate the feasibility of transferring the rights to
Ecology’s Trust Water Rights Program to eliminate future stresses on stream flow within
the watershed.
A.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Findings and conclusions related to the groundwater system in the vicinity of the Illahee
Creek watershed that are relevant to the aquifer protection plan are summarized below.
Additional detail regarding these findings and conclusions are included in the main body
of the report and in attached appendices.
A.3.1 Manette Peninsula Hydrogeologic Conditions
1. The geologic and topographic characteristics of the Manette Peninsula result in a
system that is, for the most part, hydrogeologically self-contained. Groundwater
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 4
within the peninsula originates primarily from infiltration and not from
groundwater inflow from outside of the basin. Groundwater leaves the peninsula
in one of three primary ways: through stream flow, through discharge to saltwater
bodies, or through groundwater extraction wells.
2. Groundwater on the Manette Peninsula occurs in layers of glacial and interglacial
sediments. These layers have a wide range of hydraulic conductivities and form a
sequence of aquifers and confining units. The glacial and interglacial sequences
of deposits are heterogeneous and are difficult to correlate over large distances
with any degree of certainty.
3. The municipal water supply wells on the Manette Peninsula are completed in
semi-confined or “leaky” aquifers. In a leaky aquifer, a portion of the water
extracted by the wells may originate from storage in the pumped aquifer and a
portion may come from leakage through confining layers. When pumping first
begins, the water comes primarily from storage in the pumped aquifer. As time
goes on, more of the water that is extracted originates as leakage through the
confining layer. Groundwater wells that are constructed within these leaky
aquifers induce additional downward migration of groundwater, thereby reducing
base flow to streams and wetlands. 1
4. Aquifer leakage factors can be used to describe the area or zone of impact for
groundwater extraction wells in leaky aquifer systems. The leakage factor can be
considered a measure of the area of influence for a well. Wells in aquifers that
are more leaky have smaller leakage factors and smaller areas of influence. More
water is derived from shallow aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the well and
less water is derived from more distant locations for aquifers with smaller leakage
factors. A smaller leakage factor results in more leakage in the immediate
vicinity of the well, while a larger value results in leakage over a larger areal
extent.
5. Estimated leakage factors for the permeable interbeds and sea level aquifers on
the Kitsap Peninsula based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies and field
data are in the range of 2,000 to 8,000 feet. The results of a 60-day pumping test
that was completed at NPAWD Well 14 give similar estimates for leakage factors.
If a well’s radius of influence is defined as the radius that contributes 90% of the
flow to the well, then the radius of influence for a leakage factor of 2,000 feet is
approximately 6,500 feet. The 90% radius of influence is approximately 65,000 ft
if the leakage factor is equal to 8,000 ft. These relationships are shown in Figure
C.3.
6. Most of the groundwater extracted from wells completed in leaky aquifer systems
similar to what has been observed on the Manette Peninsula is derived from areas
that are less than three miles from the well. The water that is extracted at these
1 Base flow is defined as sustained or fair-weather stream flow. In most streams, base flow is composed
largely of groundwater effluent (Langbein and Iseri, 1960).
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 5
wells under state-state or equilibrium conditions is derived from vertical leakage
within these areas.
7. The most reliable estimate of deep groundwater recharge on the Manette
Peninsula is 3,100 acre-feet per year. The estimated groundwater extraction from
deeper aquifers on the Manette Peninsula is 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year.
NPAWD claims water rights for wells in deep aquifers that add to over 4,000
acre-feet per year. The City of Bremerton holds water rights certificates
authorizing the extraction of 1,888 acre-feet per year from their Wells 13 and 14
on the Manette Peninsula. These estimates suggest that the groundwater
resources on the Manette Peninsula may be over-allocated.
A.3.2. Illahee Creek Hydrogeologic Conditions
1. Groundwater in the Illahee Creek basin serves several functions. It provides a
source for domestic and municipal drinking water supply, it provides base flow to
Illahee Creek, and it supports vegetation and habitat associated with springs and
seeps. Groundwater also contributes to soil erosion and slope instabilities.
2. The estimated amount of groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek basin is
approximately 240 million gallons per year. This is equivalent to 1 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and represents approximately 30% of the annual precipitation in the
watershed.
3. Approximately one-half of the groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek basin
becomes base flow in Illahee Creek. The remaining portion recharges deeper
aquifers, discharges to seeps and springs within the Illahee Creek watershed, or
flows out of the basin as shallow groundwater.
4. There are nine certificated water rights in the Illahee Creek basin. These rights
total 333 million gallons per year or 1.4 cubic feet per second. The largest
groundwater rights are held by the North Perry Avenue Water District (0.53 cfs
annual rate) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (0.3 cfs annual
rate). The largest surface water rights are held by the Illahee Improvement Club
(0.3 cfs) and R.L. Shutt (0.23 cfs). These four rights represent 96% of the total
certificated water rights.
5. Additional groundwater rights in the immediate vicinity of the Illahee Creek basin
likely impact the shallow aquifer within the Illahee Creek watershed. These water
rights include the North Perry Avenue Water District’s Well 13 (2.2 cfs annual
rate) and Perry Avenue Well (1.4 cfs).2
2 Well 13 was approved as an additional point of withdrawal for NPAWD’s Perry Avenue and Pickering
Street wells in January 2008 (Ecology, 2008). This approval does not provide additional water rights, but
allows the point of withdrawal to be moved closer to the Illahee Creek watershed. Well 13, which has not
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 6
A.3.3 Water supply impacts on base flow in Illahee Creek
1. NPAWD’s Riddell Road well is located within the Illahee Creek watershed. This
well is completed between depths 660 to 674 feet (elevation -315 to -329 feet).
The annual water right associated with the Riddell Road well equals 384 acre-feet
per year (0.53 cfs)) and the existing consumption is 92 af/yr (0.13 cfs). The
instantaneous water right is for 300 gpm and the instantaneous capacity equals
250 gpm (URS, 2008).
2. Aquifer tests conducted at the Riddell Road well in 1985 suggest that the deeper
aquifer system is relatively leaky in the vicinity of the Illahee Creek watershed
(Robinson and Noble, 1985). The estimated impact on the shallow aquifer
system in the Illahee Creek watershed in terms of induced vertical leakage is
equal to approximately 50% of the long-term pumping rate at the Riddell Road
well. This is equal to 0.06 cfs based on existing consumption rates.
3. The shallow aquifer system in the Illahee Creek watershed is likely impacted by
NPAWD’s Perry Avenue well. This well is located approximately 0.5 miles
south of the Illahee Creek watershed and is completed between depths 355 to 399
feet (elevation -13 to -57 feet). The annual water right associated with the Perry
Avenue well equals 1008 acre-feet per year (1.4 cfs) and the existing consumption
is 267 acre-feet per year (0.37 cfs). The instantaneous water right is for 630 gpm
and the instantaneous capacity equals 350 gpm (URS, 2008).
4. The estimated impact on the shallow aquifer system in the Illahee Creek
watershed in terms of induced vertical leakage is equal to approximately 20% of
the long-term pumping rate at the Perry Avenue well. This is equal to 0.07 cfs
based on existing consumption rates.
5. Induced vertical leakage that has occurred because of municipal water supply
results in reduced base flow in Illahee Creek. The estimated reduction in base
flow from municipal water supply is one-half of the induced vertical leakage or
approximately 0.06 cfs under current consumption rates.
A.3.4 Land use impacts on base flow in Illahee Creek
1. Land use changes that have resulted from urbanization and development have
likely resulted in reduced groundwater recharge within the Illahee Creek
watershed. This reduction is estimated to equal approximately 0.2 to 0.3 cfs.
This represents a 20% reduction in the estimated pre-development groundwater
yet been constructed, is approved for the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 in Section 36, Township 25N, Range 1E.
This location is approximately 0.5 miles west of the edge of the Illahee Creek watershed.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 7
recharge rate. These reductions do not consider impacts of septic systems, which
are described below.
2. Reductions in groundwater recharge that have occurred because of land use
changes translate into reduced base flow in Illahee Creek. The estimated
reduction in base flow from land use changes that have occurred in the watershed
is 20% of pre-development base flow or 0.1 cfs.
A.3.5 Impact of on-site septic systems
1. On-site septic systems contribute increased groundwater recharge and increased
nitrate loadings in the Illahee Creek watershed. Each household that uses a septic
system adds approximately 200 gallons per day of recharge and 0.067 pounds of
nitrate-nitrogen to the water table, based on literature values.
2. The allowable nitrate loading to the Illahee Creek watershed depends upon the
natural groundwater recharge rate and the allowable nitrate concentration. If the
allowable nitrate concentration in groundwater is 1 mg/L, then approximately 100
households can be allowed to use septic systems. This estimate is based on an
assumed natural groundwater recharge rate of 1.0 cfs. If the allowable nitrate
concentration is 5 mg/L, then 500 households on septic systems can be
accommodated. These should be viewed as rough estimates that are sensitive to
assumption regarding rates of nitrate reactions that occur within groundwater
systems. Larger septic systems loads would be allowed if subsurface de-
nitrification rates are larger than the relatively conservative rates assumed in this
study.
3. The increased groundwater recharge from 100 houses on septic systems is 0.03
cfs. This represents approximately 3% of the natural groundwater recharge rate
for the Illahee Creek watershed.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 8
B. ESTIMATES OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
This section includes results of published water balances that describe the source and
amount of groundwater recharge and the amount of groundwater extraction on the
Manette Peninsula and in the Illahee Creek watershed. Water balances for the Manette
Peninsula are relevant to flow conditions in the Illahee Creek watershed because of
connections among aquifer systems. Groundwater extraction wells that are located
outside of the Illahee Creek watershed can impact groundwater flow conditions within
the watershed.
Conclusions that can be developed based on the water balances described in this section
include the following:
• The geologic and topographic characteristics of the Manette Peninsula result in a
system that is, for the most part, hydrogeologically self-contained. Groundwater
within the peninsula originates primarily from infiltration and not from groundwater
inflow from outside of the basin. Groundwater leaves the peninsula in one of three
primary ways: through stream flow, through discharge to saltwater bodies, or
through groundwater extraction wells.
• The most reliable estimate of deep groundwater recharge on the Manette Peninsula
is 3,100 acre-feet per year. The estimated groundwater extraction from deeper
aquifers on the Manette Peninsula is 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year. The North Perry
Avenue Water District (NPAWD) claims water rights for wells in deep aquifers that
add to over 4,000 acre-feet per year. The City of Bremerton holds water rights
certificates authorizing the extraction of 1,888 acre-feet per year from their Wells
13 and 14 on the Manette Peninsula. These estimates suggest that the groundwater
resources on the Manette Peninsula may be over-allocated.
• The estimated amount of groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek basin is
approximately 240 million gallons per year. This is equivalent to 1 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and represents approximately 30% of the annual precipitation in the
watershed.
• Approximately one-half of the groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek basin
becomes base flow in Illahee Creek. The remaining portion recharges deeper
aquifers, discharges to seeps and springs within the Illahee Creek watershed, or
flows out of the basin as shallow groundwater.
B.1 GROUNDWATER BALANCES ON THE MANETTE PENINSULA
The primary components of a groundwater balance on the Manette Peninsula are shallow
groundwater recharge from local precipitation, discharge to streams and wetlands,
recharge to deeper aquifers, discharge to saltwater bodies, and extraction from water
supply wells. These components are briefly described in the paragraphs below.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 9
B.1.1 Source and amount of groundwater recharge
Precipitation is the source of nearly all groundwater on the Kitsap Peninsula, as noted in
the following excerpts:
“Precipitation provides the sole source of water for all of the streams, lakes, springs,
and other surface waters and ground water within the County. Some of this water
evaporates or is used by plants, some flows into streams and rivers, and the rest
infiltrates into the soil to become groundwater.” (Kitsap County Public Utility
District, 1997, page 95-2)
“Precipitation is the source of all surface and ground water in the study area….
Deeper aquifers are recharged by ground water from the overlying aquifers.” (Cox,
2003, page 4)
“Precipitation is the source of almost all ground water in the study area.” (van
Heeswijk and Smith, 2002, page 8)
The extent of hydraulic connection between the Kitsap peninsula and the
surrounding area is unknown, but the authors believe that the source of practically
all fresh water on the Kitsap peninsula is local precipitation. (Hansen and Bolke,
1980, page 28)
Example water balances on the Manette Peninsula developed by AGI (1997) and Golder
(2005) are summarized in Table B.1. The column labeled “Recharge” gives the portion
of the annual precipitation that percolates vertically through the ground beneath the root
zones of plants and recharges the ground-water system at the water table. The amount of
recharge varies areally as a function of precipitation rate, vegetation type, land use, land
slope, soil type, and near-surface geology. A portion of the recharge flows from the
groundwater system into local streams. This portion is listed in the column labeled
“Baseflow.” Recharge that does not return to local streams as baseflow is assumed to
flow to deeper aquifers.
Table B.1. Example water balances for the Manette Peninsula. All values are given in
units of inches per year, unless otherwise noted.
Source Precipitation ET1 Runoff2
Recharge Base
flow
Deep
GW
(in/yr)
Deep
GW3
(af/yr)
AGI (1997) 40 19 8.0 13.0 2.5 10.5 9,900
Golder (2005) 50.2 21.4 18.5 10.3 7 3.3 3,100
1Evapotranspiration, which is the combined effects of evaporation and plant transpiration 2Runoff describes surface and near-surface stormwater flow
3Based on an assumed area for the Manette Peninsula of 17.7 square miles (KPUD, 1997)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 10
The water balance estimates listed in Table B.1 show that there are significant
differences in estimates for the amount of recharge that reaches deep aquifers beneath the
Manette Peninsula. The differences are particularly large when viewed as a percentage
of precipitation. The AGI (1997) estimate for deep groundwater recharge represents 26%
of their estimated annual precipitation while the Golder (2005) estimate represents 6.5%.
These differences are due in large part to estimates of baseflow; lower estimates of
baseflow result in higher estimates of deep groundwater recharge. The baseflow
estimates provided in AGI (1997) are equal to the lowest observed flow measurements in
23 streams on the Manette Peninsula. These low flows were observed on August 16,
1961; August 22, 1952, and August 26 and 27, 1947 (Garling et al., 1965). The baseflow
estimates developed by Golder (2005) are based on average values collected from 8
streams throughout the Kitsap Peninsula during the period 1948 to 2001. The true annual
baseflow is larger than the AGI (1997) estimate and may be larger or smaller than the
Golder (2005) estimate. Because of the relationship between estimated baseflow
estimated and deep groundwater recharge described above, the true recharge rate to deep
aquifers is smaller than the AGI (1997) estimate and may be smaller or larger than the
Golder (2005) estimate.
B.1.2 Amount of groundwater discharge to streams, wetlands, and saltwater bodies
The modeling results reported in van Heeswijk and Smith show that under pre-
development conditions, approximately 60% of the long-term average groundwater
recharge discharges to freshwater features and approximately 40% discharges to saltwater
features (van Heeswijk and Smith, 2002, Table 21, page 102). Table B.2 summarizes
these results. Although the fractions of groundwater discharge to freshwater and
saltwater have not been quantified for the Manette Peninsula for predevelopment
conditions, it is likely to be similar to the values reported in van Heeswijk and Smith
(2002).
Table B.2. Estimated groundwater discharge as percentage of long-term average recharge
under predevelopment conditions (from van Heeswijk, and Smith, 2002)
Discharge locations Percentage of long-term
recharge
Freshwater (springs, seeps, and streams) 60.2%
Saltwater (Dyes Inlet, Liberty Bay/Port
Orchard, and Hood Canal) 39.8 %
The rate groundwater recharge to deep aquifers should be approximately equal to the rate
of groundwater discharge to saltwater under pre-development conditions on the Manette
Peninsula. The results from van Heeswijk and Smith that show 40% of the average
groundwater recharge eventually discharges to saltwater support the Golder estimate of
deep groundwater recharge. The Golder estimate of 3.3 inches of deep groundwater
recharge represents approximately 32% of their estimate of total groundwater recharge
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 11
(10.3 inches). The AGI estimate of 10.5 inches of deep groundwater recharge represents
approximately 81% of their estimate of total groundwater recharge (13.0 inches).
B.1.3 Amount of groundwater extraction on the Manette Peninsula
AGI (1997) estimated that groundwater withdrawal on the Manette Peninsula in 1997
was approximately 6,000 to 7,000 acre-feet/year. They estimated that approximately
one-half of this amount (3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year) was withdrawn from wells
completed in the deeper aquifers and that the remaining one-half was withdrawn from
wells completed in the more shallow surficial and upland aquifers (AGI, 1997a, p. 8.3).
Based on a comparison between groundwater recharge and 1997 groundwater
withdrawal, AGI concluded that 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet/year was discharging to Puget
Sound or deeper aquifers (AGI, 1997, p. 5.3).
Ecology issued Reports of Examination (ROE’s) in 2001 that allow NPAWD Well 14 to
be an additional point of withdrawal for the certificated rights associated with NPAWD’s
Gilberton and Center Street wells. The 2001 Ecology decisions on Well 14 were based in
part on an assumed available groundwater yield for the Manette Peninsula in 2001 of
4,000 acre-feet/year (Ecology, 2001, ROE for G1-23075C, page 8). According to
Ecology, this estimate of available groundwater yield was based on the 1997 AGI report.
The water balance produced through the WRIA 15 watershed planning process (Golder,
2005) suggests that the groundwater system on the Manette Peninsula is likely over-
allocated. For example, NPAWD claims water rights that add to over 4,000 acre-feet per
year (Ecology, 2008, ROE for Certificate 2865, Table 3, page 8). These rights alone
exceed the estimated deep groundwater recharge rate of 3,100 acre-feet per year
developed by Golder (2005). In addition, the City of Bremerton holds water rights
certificates authorizing the extraction of 1,888 acre-feet per year from their Wells 13 and
14 on the Manette Peninsula (City of Bremerton, 2006).
Observed aquifer water level declines in the aquifer tapped by NPAWD’s Perry Avenue
and Pickering Street wells also suggest that portions of the groundwater system may be
over-allocated. These declines are described in Table B.3.
wells. All water level values are in feet.
B.2 GROUNDWATER BALANCES WITHIN THE ILLAHEE CREEK
WATERSHED
The groundwater balances for the Manette Peninsula summarized in Table B.1 and
described above are based on estimates that represent “typical” land uses and soil types.
Estimates specific to the Illahee Creek watershed are described below. The Illahee Creek
watershed is shown in Figure B.1. General characteristics of the watershed are described
in Table B.4.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 12
Figure B.1. Illahee Creek Watershed (from Parametrix, 2007)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 13
Table B.3. Observed aquifer water level declines in the aquifer tapped by the Perry and
Pickering wells. All water level values are in feet.
Well
Static water
level at
construction1
Year1
Highest
2006
level1
Decline1
Maximum
drawdown from
long-term
hydrographs2
Perry Avenue 110 1959 166 56 90
Pickering Street 99 1955 150 51 95
Center Street 1 50 1955 82 32 70
Center Street 2 63 1984 78 15 80
1Source: Becker, J.E., North Perry Avenue Water District Manette Peninsula Conceptual
Model, June, 2007, page 14.
2 Source: AGI, Source of Supply and Basin Assessment for North Perry Water District,
February, 1997, Figures 3.16 and 3.16.
Table B.4. Summary of watershed characteristics (from Kitsap County Department of
Community Development, 2002)
Comments
Watershed area 1.3 Square miles
Parcels 628 Assessor
Housing units 797 Assessor
Population 1993 Estimated using number of housing units
Population density 1557
Roads 9 Miles
Streams 4 Miles
Fish-bearing streams 2 Miles
Forest 67.6% Based on aerial imagery, June 2000
Impervious 15.2% Based on aerial imagery, June 2000
Bare ground 0.4% Based on aerial imagery, June 2000
Turf 16.7% Based on aerial imagery, June 2000
B.2.1 Estimates of groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek watershed
Estimates of groundwater recharge rates in the Illahee Creek watershed under natural and
existing conditions have been described by the Kitsap County Department of Community
Development (Kitsap DCD, 2002). These estimates are described in Table B.5. The
estimated precipitation reported by the Kitsap DCD is 39 inches per year. This rate of
precipitation over a drainage area of 1.3 square miles equals 3.7 cubic feet per second.
Under natural forested conditions, the surface runoff from the Illahee Creek watershed
was likely very small. The Kitsap DCD references an estimated runoff rate of less than
1% of the annual precipitation (Kitsap DCD, 2002). Under existing conditions, the
surface runoff has been estimated to be approximately 13% of annual precipitation or 350
acre-feet per year. These estimates are calculated based upon a 1998 study which
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 14
examined what proportion of rainfall goes to evapo-transpiration, runoff, interflow, and
groundwater. These estimates were developed based upon land cover for a "typical
Pacific Northwest" watershed (Kitsap DCD, 2002).
Estimates of groundwater recharge for the Illahee Creek watershed can also be developed
using regression equations that were developed by the USGS (Bidlake and Payne, 2001).
These equations, which are presented in Table B.6, give groundwater recharge as a
function of precipitation. Equations have been developed for different soil types,
vegetation, and land uses. The equations were developed based on detailed water-budget
measurements in four drainage basins in Kitsap County. Table B.7 summarizes the basin
areas, land uses, and land covers for the basins that were used by Bidlake and Payne in
developing their equations and compares these characteristics to estimates for the Illahee
Creek watershed.
Table B.5. Comparison of Water Balances under Natural and Existing Conditions (from
Kitsap County Department of Community Development, 2002)
Natural Existing Change from Natural
mgals/yr1 cfs2 %
Average annual precipitation
(inches)
39.0 39.0 0%
Evaporation and transpiration 46% 40% (54) (0.23) -14%
Surface runoff 0.27% 13.1% 112 0.47 4806%
Interflow (stream recharge) 21% 21% 0 0 0%
Groundwater aquifer recharge 33% 26% (58) (0.24) -21%
1million gallons per year 2cubic feet per second
Table B.8 gives estimated groundwater recharge rates for the Illahee Creek watershed
based on specific land use and soil characteristics in the watershed. The watershed was
assumed to be 54% undeveloped till, 12% forested outwash, 4% non-forested outwash,
and 30% developed. The estimated groundwater recharge rate for this set of land use and
soil characteristics is 1 cfs if the annual precipitation is 40 inches and 1.4 cfs if the annual
precipitation is 50 inches.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 15
Table B.6. Equations for estimating annual recharge to ground water from annual
precipitation for different soil and land-cover groups (from Bidlake and Payne, 2001]
Soil and land-cover group
Annual recharge, R, in
inches, as a function of
annual precipitation, P,
in inches
Recharge
for P=40
inches per
year
Recharge
for P=50
inches per
year
Non-forest vegetation on
soils formed on glacial
outwash and other alluvium
R = 0.806P – 8.87 23.4 31.4
Forest vegetation and soils
formed on glacial outwash
and other alluvium
R = 0.633P – 6.96 18.4 24.7
Forest and non-forest
vegetation on soils formed
on glacial till or fine-
grained sediments
R = 0.388P – 4.27 11.3 15.1
Developed or urban land R = 0.194P – 2.13 5.6 7.6
Water and wetlands R assumed to equal 0 0 0
Table B.7. Comparison of watersheds used to develop Bidlake and Payne equations with
Illahee Creek watershed.
Basin Basin size
(mi2)
Percent
urban soils
Percent till
soils
Percent
forested
Upper Johnson Creek 0.33 1% 99% 80%
Johnson Creek 0.71 7% 93% 72%
Devils Hole Creek 2.61 25% 54% 53%
Gamble Creek 5.97 4% 68% 53%
Estimated Illahee Creek 1.20 30% 82% 67%
Table B.8. Estimates of groundwater recharge in the Illahee Creek watershed based on
Bidlake and Payne (2001) equations
Illahee Creek Recharge (cfs)
Land use/geology % acres P= 40 in/yr P=50 in/yr
Non-forest outwash 4% 34 0.09 0.12
Forest outwash 12% 101 0.21 0.29
Undeveloped Till 54% 439 0.57 0.76
Developed/urban 30% 246 0.16 0.21
Total recharge: 1.03 1.39
Table B.9 compares estimated groundwater recharge for the Illahee Creek watershed.
These recharge rates are listed as a percentage of the annual precipitation and in terms of
flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) The recharge rate as a percentage of annual
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 16
precipitation ranges from 21% to 33% and the average flow rate ranges from
approximately 1 cfs to 1.4 cfs.
The recharge rates given in Table B.9 represent the portion of the annual precipitation
that percolates vertically through the ground beneath the root zones of plants and
recharges the ground-water system at the water table. A portion of the groundwater
recharge flows from the groundwater system into Illahee Creek. This is groundwater
flow to the stream is termed base flow
Estimates of base flow in Illahee Creek can be derived based on observed low-flow
measurements. Table B.10 lists observed low flows in Illahee Creek. The annual
average base flow will likely be somewhat larger than the low-flow measurements
observed in August. A reasonable estimate for the annual average base flow in Illahee
Creek may be roughly 0.5 to 1.0 cfs.
Table B.9. Comparison of estimates of groundwater recharge in Illahee Creek watershed
Reference Precipitation Groundwater Recharge
inches cfs
% of
precipitation
Average rate
in cfs
Kitsap DCD, 2002 39 3.73 26% 0.97
Golder, 2005 50 4.79 21% 1.01
AGI, 1997 40.2 3.85 33% 1.25
Bidlake and Payne, 2001a 40 3.83 27% 1.03
Bidlake and Payne, 2001a 50 4.79 29% 1.39
a Estimates are based on watershed characteristics listed in Table 4.
Table B.10. Measured low-flows in the Illahee Creek watershed
Flow (cfs)
Aspect Consulting, 2006 8/25/2006 0.3
Garling et al., 1965 8/27/1947 0.4
CR Hydrogeologic, 2002 7/17/2002 0.8
Recharge that does not return to Illahee Creek as base flow is assumed to flow to deeper
aquifers. The estimated recharge to the deeper aquifers beneath the Illahee Creek
watershed is roughly 0.5 cfs. This estimate is derived by subtracting the estimated base
flow (0.5 to 1.0 cfs) from the shallow groundwater recharge rate (1 to 1.4 cfs).
B.2.2 Amount of groundwater extraction in the Illahee Creek watershed
There are nine certificated water rights in the Illahee Creek basin. These rights, which
are listed in Appendix A, total 333 million gallons per year or 1.4 cubic feet per second.
The largest groundwater rights are held by the North Perry Avenue Water District (0.53
cfs annual rate) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (0.3 cfs annual
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 17
rate). The largest surface water rights are held by the Illahee Improvement Club (0.3 cfs)
and R.L. Shutt (0.23 cfs). These four rights represent 96% of the total certificated water
rights.
Additional groundwater rights in the immediate vicinity of the Illahee Creek basin likely
impact the shallow aquifer within the Illahee Creek watershed. These water rights
include the North Perry Avenue Water District’s Well 13 (2.2 cfs annual rate) and Perry
Avenue Well (1.4 cfs annual rate).3
Appendix B includes tables that provide additional information regarding water rights
and water systems on the Manette Peninsula.
3 Well 13 was approved as an additional point of withdrawal for NPAWD’s Perry Avenue and Pickering
Street wells in January 2008 (Ecology, 2008). This approval does not provide additional water rights, but
allows the point of withdrawal to be moved closer to the Illahee Creek watershed. Well 13, which has not
yet been constructed, is approved for the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 in Section 36, Township 25N, Range 1E.
This location is approximately 0.5 miles west of the edge of the Illahee Creek watershed.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 18
C. HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Characteristics of the aquifers and confining units on the Manette Peninsula and in the
Illahee Creek watershed are described this section. These characteristics are based on
published reports describing local and regional groundwater flow systems. The focus of
the discussions in this section is on hydrogeological characteristics. An overview of
geological characteristics is included in Parametrix and Stillwater Sciences (2007).
Conclusions related to hydrogeologic conditions include the following:
• Groundwater on the Manette Peninsula occurs in layers of glacial and interglacial
sediments. These layers have a wide range of hydraulic conductivities and form a
sequence of aquifers and confining units. The glacial and interglacial sequences of
deposits are heterogeneous and are difficult to correlate over large distances with
any degree of certainty.
• The aquifers beneath the Manette Peninsula are leaky aquifers that derive recharge
from local precipitation. Groundwater wells that are constructed within these leaky
aquifers induce additional downward migration of groundwater, thereby reducing
base flow to streams and wetlands.
• Aquifer leakage factors are used to describe the area or zone of impact for
groundwater extraction wells in leaky aquifer systems. Estimated leakage factors
for the permeable interbeds and sea level aquifers on the Kitsap Peninsula based on
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies and field data are in the range of 2,000 to
8,000 feet. The results of a 60-day pumping test that was completed at NPAWD
Well 14 give similar estimates for leakage factors.
• Most of the groundwater extracted from wells completed in leaky aquifer systems
similar to what has been observed on the Manette Peninsula is derived from areas
that are less than three miles from the well. The water that is extracted at these
wells under state-state or equilibrium conditions is derived from vertical leakage
within these areas.
C.1 OVERVIEW OF THE GROUNDWATER FLOW SYSTEM
The hydrogeology on the Kitsap Peninsula has been described in numerous USGS
reports, including Sceva (1957), Hansen and Bolke (1980), Kahle (1998), Vacarro,
Hansen and Jones (1998), and van Heeswijk, and Smith (2002). The overview
summarized below is derived from the descriptions included in van Heeswijk and Smith
(2002) and Kahle (1998). Although the descriptions in these two USGS reports focus
specifically on groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the Bangor Submarine
Base, they also provide descriptions of more regional-scale systems.
The geologic and topographic characteristics of the Manette Peninsula result in a system
that is, for the most part, hydrogeologically self-contained. Groundwater within the
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 19
peninsula originates primarily from infiltration and not from groundwater inflow from
outside of the basin. Groundwater leaves the basin in one of three primary ways: through
stream flow, through discharge to saltwater bodies, or through groundwater extraction
wells. An increase in one of these end points necessarily results in a decrease in the other.
As more water is removed through groundwater extraction wells, less water is available
for stream flow.
The municipal water supply wells on the Manette Peninsula are completed in semi-
confined or “leaky” aquifers. In a leaky aquifer, a portion of the water extracted by the
wells may originate from storage in the pumped aquifer and a portion may come from
leakage through confining layers. When pumping first begins, the water comes primarily
from storage in the pumped aquifer. As time goes on, more of the water that is extracted
originates as leakage through the confining layer.
C.2 AQUIFER AND CONFINING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
Groundwater on the Manette Peninsula occurs in layers of glacial and interglacial
sediments. These layers have a wide range of hydraulic conductivities and form a
sequence of aquifers and confining units. The glacial and interglacial sequences of
deposits are heterogeneous and are difficult to correlate over large distances with any
degree of certainty. Deeper units frequently are more discontinuous or have large
changes in thickness because the glacial deposits in older units were frequently reworked
or eroded during later glacial and interglacial periods (van Heeswijk and Smith, 2002, p
8).
Kahle (1998) identified five aquifers and four confining units that are discernible on a
regional scale on the Kitsap Peninsula. These were identified by grouping lithologies of
similar permeabilities. The lithologic information was obtained from descriptions of
more than 400 wells inventoried by the USGS. The aquifers that Kahle identified include
the shallow Vashon recessional aquifer (Qvr), the Vashon advance aquifer (Qva),
permeable interbeds (QC1pi), the Sea-level aquifer (QA1), and the Deep aquifer (QA2).
Confining units include Vashon till (Qvt) the upper confining unit (QC1), the lower
confining unit (QC2), and the basal confining unit (QC3). These units are shown
schematically on Figure C.1. Figure C.2 compares hydrogeologic unit labels and
terminology used in previous groundwater studies on the Manette Peninsula with labels
and terminology used by the UGS.
Groundwater occurs under water-table conditions in the shallow Qvr aquifer and most of
the Qva aquifer. The Qva aquifer is confined where it is fully saturated and overlain by
the Vashon till confining unit. The permeable interbeds and the Sea-level and Deep
aquifers are confined aquifers (van Heeswijk and Smith, 2002, p. 9).
The units that are of most relevance to the effects of municipal water supply wells on
water levels and base flow in the Illahee Creek watershed are the permeable interbeds,
the sea-level aquifer, and the upper confining unit. Ranges of hydraulic conductivity
values for the sea level and permeable bed aquifers and their confining units are included
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 20
Figure C.1. Conceptual hydrogeologic section, Kitsap County, Washington. From van
Heeswijk and Smith, 2002
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 21
Figure C.2. Hydrogeologic unit labels and terminology used in groundwater studies in
Kitsap County (After Becker, 2007)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 22
in Tables C.1 and C.2. Table C.1 includes observed values based on field measurements
and Table C.2 includes values estimated from model calibration.4 The values for the
confining unit derived from model calibration are smaller than the values from field
measurements. This is due in part to biases in the field data -field data for confining units
usually are from zones where lenses of coarse material exist (Kahle, 1998, page 14).
Table C.1. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity values in ft/day from Kahle (1998)
Unit Description Number of
measurements
25th
percentile
Median 75th
percentile
QC1 Upper confining unit 36 4.4 9.7 70
QCpi Permeable interbeds 60 20 34 140
QA1 Sea-level aquifer 71 12 43 120
Table C.2. Hydraulic conductivity values in ft/day from van Heeswijk and Smith (2002)
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity values
Model Layer Unit Median Mean Minimum Maximum
3 QC1 0.01 0.08 0.003 10.0
4 QC1pi 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
5 QC1 0.01 0.024 0.003 0.8
6,7,8 QA1 5.0 6.6 1.0 25.0
Vertical hydraulic conductivity values
3 QC1 0.001 0.0057 0.0003 0.1
4 QC1pi 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5 QC1 0.001 0.0024 0.0003 0.08
6,7,8 QA1 0.05 0.066 0.01 0.25
The vertical hydraulic conductivity value for confining units is an important factor that
controls the area or zone of impact for groundwater extraction wells. The approach used
to estimate these values in the USGS study by Van Heeswijk and Smith is described as
follows (van Heeswijk and Smith, 2002, page 41):
The ease with which water moves in the vertical direction between adjacent model
layers is controlled by vertical conductance (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). In
this study, vertical conductance was calculated using layer thickness and vertical
hydraulic conductivity. Vertical hydraulic conductivities were calculated by
assuming ratios between horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities and
adjusting horizontal hydraulic conductivities to achieve model calibration. The
ratios were assumed to be 10 for horizontal hydraulic conductivities less than 1
4 Additional field-measured values of vertical hydraulic conductivity are reported in Vaccaro et al. (1998).
The median value from 57 measurements of vertical hydraulic conductivity from tills in the Puget Sound
region was 0.12 ft/day and range was from 0.0002 to 53 ft/day.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 23
ft/d (those representative of confining units) and 100 for horizontal hydraulic
conductivities greater than or equal to 1 ft/d (those representative of aquifers).
Hydrogeologic properties of the permeable interbeds, the sea level aquifer, and the deep
aquifer are summarized in Table C.3. The properties of the confining units for these
aquifers are also listed. The hydraulic conductivity values included in Table C.3 are
based on the calibrated model described in van Heeswijk, and Smith (2002). Mean
values from the calibrated model are listed for the vertical hydraulic conductivity of
confining units. The mean value for the portion of the QC1 confining unit that is above
the permeable interbeds is equal to 0.0057 ft/day and the mean value for the portion
below the permeable interbeds is 0.0024 ft/day. The thicknesses listed in Table C.3 are
mean values given in Kahle (1998, p. 5).
Table C.3. Hydrogeologic properties of aquifer and confining units of relevance to the
impacts from wells in the Illahee Creek watershed. Based on van Heeswijk and Smith
(2002) and Kahle (1998)
Aquifer
Median
hydraulic
conductivity
Aquifer
thickness
Average
confining
unit
conductivity
Average
confining
unit
thickness
Calculated
leakage
factor5
(ft/day) (ft) (ft/day) (ft) (ft)
K b K’ b’ B
Permeable
interbeds 10 29 0.00571 1002 2,256
Sea level 5 110 0.00243 2004 5,706
Deep 3 120 0.0013 140 6,200 to
7,7506
1 Average value used in the model for the portion of the confining unit above the permeable interbeds (van
Heeswijk and Smith, 2002).
2 Assumed equal to one-half the total thickness of QC1 confining unit
3 Average value used in the model for the portion of the confining unit below the permeable interbeds (van
Heeswijk and Smith, 2002).
4 Total thickness of QC1 confining unit, including portions above and below permeable interbeds.
5 See equations (1) and (2) for definition of leakage factor. Smaller values for leakage factors correspond
to more leaky systems.
6 The lower value assumes leakage from the sea level aquifer with a confining unit of 140 feet and the
higher value assumes leakage from the Vashon aquifer with a total confining unit thickness of 340 feet
C.3 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION IN LEAKY AQUIFERS
The aquifers beneath the Manette Peninsula are leaky aquifers that derive recharge from
local precipitation. Groundwater wells that are constructed within these leaky aquifers
induce additional downward migration of groundwater, thereby reducing baseflow to
streams and wetlands.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 24
The effects of groundwater extraction in leaky aquifer systems can be quantified using
the Hantush equation (e.g., Hantush, 1964; Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The Hantush
equation was developed using the same set of assumptions used in developing the
commonly-used Theis equation. The only difference between the two equations is that
the Hantush solution allows vertical leakage from overlying aquifers. The Theis solution
assumes that there is no vertical leakage and that all water that is extracted from a well is
derived from storage within the pumped aquifer.
The amount of leakage caused by pumping a well in a leaky aquifer is controlled in large
part by the leakage factor. This factor is given by the following expression (e.g.,
Hantush, 1964; Freeze and Cherry, 1979):
='
'
K
KbbB (Equation C.1)
where B is the leakage factor (ft), K is the aquifer hydraulic conductivity (ft/day), b is the
aquifer thickness (ft), K’ is the confining unit hydraulic conductivity (ft/day), and b’ is
the confining unit thickness.5 The leakage factor can be considered a measure of the
area of influence for a well. Wells in aquifers that are more leaky have smaller leakage
factors and smaller areas of influence. More water is derived from shallow aquifers in
the immediate vicinity of the well and less water is derived from more distant locations
for aquifers with smaller leakage factors.
Figure C.3 gives estimates of the spatial distribution of vertical leakage under long-term
or steady-state conditions based on the Hantush equations.6 The horizontal axis gives
distance from the well and the vertical axis gives the percentage of the pumped water that
is derived from leakage within a given radius. The curves shown in Figure C.3 illustrate
that the spatial distribution of leakage is controlled by the leakage factor, B. A smaller
leakage factor results in more leakage in the immediate vicinity of the well, while a larger
value results in leakage over a larger areal extent.
Figure C.3 shows that if the radius of influence is defined as the radius that contributes
90% of the flow to the well, then the radius of influence for a leakage factor of 2,500 feet
is approximately 8,000 feet. The 90% radius of influence is approximately 40,000 ft if
the leakage factor is equal to 7,500 ft. It should be noted that the Hantush leaky well
equations used to develop Figure C.3 do not depend upon the pumping rate at the well.
The amount of vertical leakage that occurs within the radius of influence does depend
upon the pumping rate, but the size of the influence area does not.
The curves shown in Figure C.3 describe impacts of a single well. The presence of
multiple wells in a leaky aquifer will result in interference among wells. This
5 The ratio (K’/b’), where K’ is the confining unit hydraulic conductivity and b’ is the confining unit
thickness, is termed the vertical conductance.
6 Equations used to develop the curves shown in Figure C.3 are included in Appendix D
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 25
interference causes larger drawdowns and smaller influence areas for each well, as
compared to a single well with no interference effects. Smaller influence areas will also
occur for wells in leaky aquifers with lateral boundaries, similar to what has been
suggested for the permeable interbeds aquifer on the Manette Peninsula.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
Radial distance from the well (ft)Amount of water derived from leakage (%)Leakage factor =2,000 ft
Leakage factor=8,000 ft
90% value
Figure C.3. Curves showing influence areas for wells in leaky aquifer systems
The method of super-position that is often used to describe the effects of multiple wells in
fully confined aquifers can also be use to describe the effects of multiple wells in leaky
aquifers. With this approach, the total drawdown from multiple wells is calculated by
summing the drawdowns calculated using the Hantush equation for each well. The
Hantush equation can also be used with image wells to simulate no-flow or constant head
boundaries, in an approach that is directly analogous to what is often done with the Theis
equation for fully-confined aquifers.
The Hantush-Jacob solution can also be used to estimate drawdowns and impacts if the
confining unit has interbeds of higher-conductivity materials, similar to what has been
suggested for the Manette Peninsula. An effective vertical conductance is defined for the
layered confining unit. This effective vertical conductance is given by the following
expression (e.g., Hunt, 2005; Freeze and Cherry, 1979):
)/(
1
'
'
''∑=
iieffKbb
K (Equation C.2)
Where the b’i and K’i terms represent the vertical hydraulic conductivity and thicknesses
of the layers in the confining unit. The effective conductance given by Equation (C.2) is
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 26
used in Equation (C.1) to calculate drawdowns and impacts for wells in aquifers with
layered confining units.
C.4 ESTIMATES OF LEAKAGE FACTORS FOR THE MANETTE PENINSULA
Estimates of leakage factors for the Manette Peninsula can be derived based on the
characteristics of the aquifers and confining units described in Table C.3. These
estimated leakage factors, which assume leakage from the Vashon Qva aquifer, are
included in the last column in Table 5. The estimated values were derived using vertical
hydraulic conductivity values of 0.0057 ft/day and 0.0024 ft/day for the portions of the
QC1 confining unit above and below the permeable interbeds. These values are the
average values used in the USGS model described in van Heeswijk and Smith (2002).
The QC1 confining unit was assumed to be 200 feet thick, with one-half above and one-
half below the permeable interbeds.
The calculated leakage factor for the permeable interbeds aquifer is 2,256 ft and the value
for the sea level aquifer is 5,706 ft. Two estimates are included in Table C.3 for the deep
aquifer. The smaller value (6,200 ft) assumes leakage is derived from the sea level
aquifer and the larger value (7,750 ft) assumes leakage is derived from the more shallow
Vashon aquifer. The estimated leakage factor for the sea level aquifer and the larger
estimate for the deep aquifer were developed by calculating effective vertical hydraulic
conductivity values using Equation (C.2).
The results of a 60-day pumping test that was completed at NPAWD Well 14 can also be
used to develop estimates for leakage factors for deeper wells. This test, which is
described in CDM (2000), was conducted on NPAWD Well 14 in December of 1999 and
January of 2000. The leakage factors that were estimated from the Well 14 pumping test
data range from approximately 5,000 feet to 7,400 feet, as shown in Appendix C. This
range of leakage factors is consistent with values derived from hydrogeologic parameters
included in the Kahle (1998) and van Heeswijk, and Smith (2002) studies, as listed in
Table C.3.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 27
D. IMPACTS FROM LAND USE AND WELLS
The impacts of land use changes and groundwater extraction wells on groundwater
conditions within the Illahee Creek watershed are described below. These estimated
impacts are based on the recharge and hydrogeologic conditions described in Sections B
and C. Land use changes that are considered focus on urbanization impacts. Effects of
septic systems on groundwater quantity and quality are considered in Section E.
D.1 LAND USE IMPACTS ON BASE FLOW IN ILLAHEE CREEK
Land use changes that have resulted from urbanization and development have likely
resulted in reduced groundwater recharge within the Illahee Creek watershed. This
reduction is estimated to equal approximately 0.2 to 0.3 cfs. This represents a 20%
reduction in the estimated pre-development groundwater recharge rate. These reductions
do not consider impacts of septic systems, which are described in Section E.
Table D.1 supports estimates of land use impacts on groundwater recharge rates in the
Illahee Creek watershed. This table uses the equations developed by Bidlake and Payne
(2001) to estimate recharge rates for several different levels of urbanization. The existing
or “base-case” condition is described in Table B.7 and consists of an urban area equal to
246 acres or 30% of the watershed. The estimated annual groundwater recharge rate for
this base-case condition is between 1.0 and 1.4 cfs, depending upon assumed
precipitation rates. These estimates are highlighted in Table D.1 . If all of the urban area
was eliminated, the groundwater recharge rate would increase by approximately 20%.
Alternatively, if the amount of urbanization was doubled to 60% or 500 acres, the
groundwater recharge rate would decrease by approximately 20%.7
The estimated impacts from urbanization described in Table D.1 are similar to the
estimates that were developed by Kitsap County (Kitsap County DCD, 2002), as
described in Table B.4. The Kitsap County DCD estimates for changes in groundwater
recharge from pre-developed to current conditions is 0.24 cfs or 21%.
Reductions in groundwater recharge that have occurred because of land use changes
translate into reduced base flow in Illahee Creek. The estimated reduction in base flow
from land use changes that have occurred in the watershed is 20% of pre-development
base flow or 0.1 cfs.
7 Changes in the percentage of the watershed is urbanized results in changes in the percent of the watershed
that is covered with undeveloped till, forested outwash, and non-forested outwash. The relative fractions of
these three soil types remained constant for all scenarios. For example, 76% of the non-urban land was
treated as undeveloped till in all simulations.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 28
Table D.1. Estimates of change in groundwater recharge rates associated with changes
in urban areas based on equations from Bidlake and Payne (2001)
Precipitation=40 Precipitation=50
Percent
urban
area1
Recharge
rate (cfs)
Change from
estimated current
conditions
Recharge
rate (cfs)
Change from
estimated current
conditions
0% 1.25 21% 1.68 21%
15% 1.14 10% 1.53 10%
30% 1.03 0% 1.39 0%
45% 0.93 -10% 1.24 -10%
60% 0.82 -21% 1.10 -21%
75% 0.71 -31% 0.96 -31%
100% 0.53 -49% 0.71 -49%
1 Changes in the percentage of the watershed that is urbanized results in changes in the percent of the
watershed that is covered with undeveloped till, forested outwash, and non-forested outwash. The relative
fractions of these three soil types remained constant for all scenarios. For example, 76% of the non-urban
land was treated as undeveloped till in all simulations.
D.2 WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS ON BASE FLOW IN ILLAHEE CREEK
NPAWD’s Riddell Road well is located within the Illahee Creek watershed. This well is
completed between depths 660 to 674 feet (elevation -315 to -329 feet). The annual water
right associated with the Riddell Road well equals 384 acre-feet per year (0.53 cfs)) and
the existing consumption is 92 af/yr (0.13 cfs). The instantaneous water right is for 300
gpm and the instantaneous capacity equals 250 gpm (URS, 2008).
Aquifer tests conducted at the Riddell Road well in 1985 suggest that the deeper aquifer
system is relatively leaky in the vicinity of the Illahee Creek watershed (Robinson and
Noble, 1985). The estimated impact on the shallow aquifer system in the Illahee Creek
watershed in terms of induced vertical leakage is equal to approximately 50% of the long-
term pumping rate at the Riddell Road well. This is equal to 0.06 cfs based on existing
consumption rates.
The shallow aquifer system in the Illahee Creek watershed is likely impacted by
NPAWD’s Perry Avenue well. This well is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the
Illahee Creek watershed and is completed between depths 355 to 399 feet (elevation -13
to -57 feet). The annual water right associated with the Perry Avenue well equals 1008
acre-feet per year (1.4 cfs) and the existing consumption is 267 acre-feet per year (0.37
cfs). The instantaneous water right is for 630 gpm and the instantaneous capacity equals
350 gpm (URS, 2008).
The estimated impact on the shallow aquifer system in the Illahee Creek watershed in
terms of induced vertical leakage is equal to approximately 20% of the long-term
pumping rate at the Perry Avenue well. This is equal to 0.07 cfs based on existing
consumption rates.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 29
Induced vertical leakage that has occurred because of municipal water supply results in
reduced base flow in Illahee Creek. The estimated reduction in base flow from municipal
water supply is one-half of the induced vertical leakage or approximately 0.06 cfs under
current consumption rates.
D.3 IMPACTS OF REDUCED BASEFLOW ON TEMPERATURES IN ILLAHEE
CREEK
An investigation of baseflows in Illahee Creek was conducted in August of 2005 by
Aspect Consulting (Aspect, 2006). Results and conclusions are summarized with the
following excerpts from their report:
Flow, conductivity, and temperature measurements were made in Illahee Creek
on August 25, 2005 to document baseflow conditions. Illahee Creek baseflow is
predominantly groundwater discharging directly into the creek in the form of
seeps and small springs. The rate of groundwater inflow was fairly uniform
along the entire creek at 0.2 cubic feet per second per mile (cfs/mile) or 90
gallons per minute (gpm).
Flows at the Illahee Road bridge were measured at 0.37 cfs (166 gpm) in the
morning and 0.28 cfs (126 gpm)in the late afternoon. The approximate 30
percent decrease in flows during the course of the day (i.e., over 7 hours) is
attributed to an increase in evapotranspiration by riparian vegetation. Baseflow
was previously measured near this same location at 0.41 and 0.49 cfs (184 and
220 gpm), on August 27, 1947 and August 22, 1958, respectively (Division of
Water Resources, 1964). An investigation in June/July 2002 on the sources of
water for Illahee Creek indicated a flow of 0.83 cfs (373 gpm) at Illahee Creek
Road (CR Hydrogeologic Consulting, 2002).
Surface water temperatures in the creek averaged 13.4°C (56.2°F) and warmed
slightly, about 1.5°C (3°F), during the day. The mean temperature of
groundwater seeps was 12.7°C (54.8°F), slightly cooler than temperatures in
Illahee Creek, although a particularly cool inflow of 9.6°C (49°F) was noted just
below the confluence of the South and Northwest Forks. This cool inflow is
attributed to groundwater discharge from the Qc1 aquifer into the creek bottom.
Baseflow in Illahee Creek is very low and therefore small reductions in flow
would be significant. Any reductions in baseflow will likely translate into
biological impacts, which we recommend be addressed. (Note that fish were
observed in the creek about 300 feet downstream of the South Fork). Baseflow
reduction can occur due to: (1) land use changes that decrease recharge, or (2)
groundwater withdrawal from wells that are in hydraulic communication with the
creek.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 30
Changes in land use that have occurred within the watershed may have reduced base flow
by approximately 0.1 cfs and groundwater extraction may have reduced baseflow by
approximately 0.06 cfs, relative to pre-developed conditions. The net estimated impact is
approximately 0.16 cfs or 70 gpm. This represents approximately 40% to 50% of the
baseflow measured at the mouth of Illahee Creek in August of 2005. These reductions
would decrease the amount of cool groundwater that discharges into the stream, as
described by Aspect (2006). Reducing the baseflow by 40% to 50% would cause an
increase in stream temperatures. The magnitude of this increase would depend upon the
temperature difference between the groundwater and surface water. The data collected
by Aspect suggest that a 50% reduction in baseflow may increase stream temperatures by
approximately 2 to 4 degrees Celsius.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 31
E. FLOW AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
On-site septic systems contribute increased groundwater recharge and increased nitrate
loadings in the Illahee Creek watershed. Each household that uses a septic system adds
approximately 200 gallons per day of recharge and 0.06 pounds of nitrate-nitrogen to the
water table, based on literature values (e.g., EPA, 2002; Pacific Groundwater Group,
2007). Septic systems will have positive impacts due to increased groundwater recharge
and potentially negative impacts associated with increased nitrate loadings (Nolan, 2001).
The tradeoff between increased groundwater recharge and increased nitrate loadings will
depend in large part on the fate and transport of nitrate in the subsurface. As
groundwater discharges to Illahee Creek, nitrate concentration is reduced through the
combined effects of de-nitrification, plant and algae uptake, dilution through recharge,
and mixing with deeper groundwater.
The allowable nitrate loading to the Illahee Creek watershed depends upon the natural
groundwater recharge rate and the allowable nitrate concentration. If the allowable
nitrate concentration in groundwater is 1 mg/L and if the natural groundwater recharge
rate is 1.0 cfs, then the allowable nitrate loading to the groundwater table is
approximately 5.6 lbs per day. Approximately 100 households on septic systems would
result in a load of 5.6 lbs per day. This estimate is based on an assumed hydraulic
loading rate of 200 gallons per day per household, a nitrate concentration of 45 mg/L for
discharge from septic drain fields, and a nitrate loss rate of 25% between the drain field
and the water table, as described in Table E.1. If the allowable nitrate concentration is 5
mg/L, then 500 households on septic systems can be accommodated.
The estimates described above should be viewed as rough estimates that are sensitive to
assumption regarding rates of nitrate reactions that occur within groundwater systems.
Larger septic systems loads would be allowed if subsurface de-nitrification rates are
larger than the relatively conservative rate (25%) assumed for these calculations.
The increased groundwater recharge from 100 houses on septic systems is approximately
0.03 cfs. This represents approximately 3% of the natural groundwater recharge rate for
the Illahee Creek watershed. The relatively small positive impacts associated with
increased groundwater recharge could be negated by the increased nitrate loadings in the
Illahee Creek watershed.
A second potential negative impact from septic systems is increased fecal coliform.
Fecal coliform do not migrate significant distances in groundwater flow systems.
Maximum travel distances on the order of 100 feet or less are likely (Pacific Groundwater
Group, 2007). Elevated levels of fecal coliform in Illahee Creek are likely the result of
surface runoff or shallow interflow, and not groundwater discharge associated with base
flow.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 32
Other potential sources for nitrates and fecal coliform in the groundwater system include
the following:
• Sanitary sewer overflows
• Leaking sanitary sewers
• Combined sewer overflows
• Illicit sanitary connections or dumping into storm drains
• Pets
• Urban and rural wildlife
• Livestock
• Landscaped areas and golf course
• Nitrogen-fixing plants
If nitrate loads from these sources are significant in the Illahee Creek watershed, then the
number of allowable homes on septic systems would be less than the estimates described
above and in Table E.1.
Data describing nitrate concentrations within Illahee Creek are limited. The nitrate
concentration observed on July 14, 2004 at the mouth of Illahee Creek was 0.4 mg/L. It
is not known how much of this is derived from base flow and how much is derived from
surface water runoff. There was no reported rainfall in the 24 hours preceding the
sampling date, but there was 0.5 inches during the preceding 72 hours (Kitsap County,
unpublished data).
Table E.1. Estimates of allowable number of houses on septic systems for different
combinations of natural groundwater recharge rates and allowable nitrate
concentrations
Natural recharge cfs 0.5 1.0
Allowable concentration mg/L 1 5 1 5
Allowable load lbs/day 2.8 15.8 5.6 31.7
Allowable houses on septic1 45 259 91 518
Septic recharge cfs 0.015 0.087 0.031 0.174
1Assumes 217 gpd/household to septic tanks, 45 mg/L total nitrogen in effluent from septic tanks, 100%
conversion to nitrate, and 25% loss through de-nitrification and other processes (e.g., PGG, 2007)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 33
F. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
The set of projects and activities presented below would enhance and/or protect
groundwater conditions in the Illahee Creek watershed. These projects and activities,
which are aimed at protecting shallow aquifer recharge and groundwater contributions to
stream flow, are based on the groundwater conditions and hydrogeologic characteristics
summarized in Section A.3 and described in more detail in Sections B through E.
1. Limit future groundwater withdrawal from areas within and adjacent to the
Illahee Creek watershed
Available data suggest that groundwater resources on the Manette Peninsula and within
the Illahee Creek watershed may be over-allocated. The amount of groundwater rights
that have been issued for deeper wells equals or exceeds the estimated groundwater
recharge rates for the aquifers in which they are completed. These existing water rights
have not yet been fully developed. If they are fully developed in the future, groundwater
inflow to streams on the Manette Peninsula, including Illahee Creek, will likely be
reduced.
2. Encourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation
The two largest groundwater rights within the Illahee Creek watershed are held by the
North Perry Avenue Water District (0.53 cfs) and the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (0.3 cfs). These water rights exceed the estimated baseflow to Illahee Creek.
The water right listed for the Washington Department of Natural Resources is located on
the golf course and the purpose of use is for irrigation of 100 acres. Reclaimed water
may provide an alternative source for irrigation water and may allow reduced
groundwater extraction in the watershed.
3. Allow direct stream flow augmentation if other mitigation options for
groundwater extraction are not feasible
Groundwater extraction within and adjacent to the Illahee Creek watershed by the North
Perry Avenue Water District (NPAWD) likely increases groundwater recharge to deep
aquifers and decreases groundwater discharge to Illahee Creek. One approach for
mitigating impacts to stream flow is to augment flow by direct discharge to the stream
channel. This approach, in which the augmentation water is obtained from the municipal
water supply system, has been termed “pump to dump.” Although this approach may not
be optimal in terms of mimicking groundwater inflow to Illahee Creek, it can be used to
increase base flow in the absence of other mitigation options.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 34
4. Require or encourage low-impact development to help maintain or improve
groundwater recharge rates and base flow conditions
Groundwater recharge rates in the Illahee Creek watershed have likely been reduced
through development within the basin. The estimated reduction in recharge as compared
to pre-development conditions is approximately 20% or 0.2 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Low impact development practices can maintain or improve groundwater recharge rates.
These practices include minimizing or reducing impervious surfaces and encouraging
small-scale infiltration practices such as dispersion trenches for roof drains.
5. Increase groundwater recharge using near-surface infiltration facilities
Increased groundwater recharge may be accomplished in selected areas through near-
surface infiltration facilities. Source water for these facilities may be derived from
reclaimed water and stormwater. Challenges associated with this measure include
identifying geologically-suitable areas for near-surface groundwater recharge. Areas
with absent or thin till layers and with depths to groundwater more than approximately 40
feet would be preferred. Locations in the southwestern and northwestern portions of the
watershed may be suitable.
6. Evaluate the feasibility of increasing groundwater recharge using deeper
groundwater injection facilities
Increased groundwater recharge could also be accomplished through deeper injection
facilities such as injection wells. The source water for these wells would need to meet a
higher water quality standard than the near-surface facilities identified above. Injection
wells may be appropriate in some locations. These wells must be designed and operated
in a manner to prevent degradation of water quality and would likely be appropriate only
for water or wastewater utilities.
7. Support the development of a groundwater model for the Manette Peninsula
Regional groundwater models provide useful tools for water resources management. No
model has been developed for simulating flow conditions and impacts on the Manette
Peninsula. A groundwater model similar to what has been developed for the western
portions of Kitsap County by the U.S. Geological Survey (van Heeswijk and Smith,
2002) is needed to help manage groundwater resources on the Manette Peninsula.
8. Investigate the feasibility of transferring existing surface water rights into the
Department of Ecology’s Trust Water Rights Program (TWRP)
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 35
Surface water rights have been issued for streams and springs within and adjacent to the
Illahee Creek watershed. These surface water rights are approximately equal to the
estimated base flow in Illahee Creek. The two largest surface water rights are held by the
Illahee Improvement Club (0.3 cfs) and R.L. Shutt (0.23 cfs). The actual use and validity
of these surface water rights have not been determined. If the surface water rights are
valid, it would be prudent to investigate the feasibility of transferring the rights to
Ecology’s Trust Water Rights Program to eliminate future stresses on stream flow within
the watershed.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 36
REFERENCES
AGI Technologies, 1997a. Source of Supply and Basin Assessment for North Perry
Water District, Kitsap County, Washington, prepared for North Perry Avenue
Water District, Bremerton, Washington, February 4, 1997.
AGI Technologies, 1997b. Production Well 14 Construction and Testing Report, North
Perry Avenue Water District, Kitsap County, Washington, prepared for North Perry
Avenue Water District, Bremerton, WA, May 20, 1997.
Aspect Consulting. 2006. Preliminary Baseflow Investigation of Illahee Creek. Prepared
for Port of Illahee.
Becker, J.E. (Becker, 2007a) – North Perry Avenue Water District Manette Peninsula
Conceptual Model; Robinson Noble Saltbush Inc., 19 pages.
Becker, J.E. (Becker, 2007b) – North Perry Avenue Water District Well 13 Impact
Analysis; Robinson Noble Saltbush Inc., 13 pages.
Bidlake, W.R. and K.L. Payne, 2001. Estimating Recharge to Ground Water from
Precipitation at Naval Submarine Base Bangor and Vicinity, Kitsap County,
Washington, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4110.
Brown and Caldwell, 2008. Central Kitsap Wastewater GMA Compliance Plan,
Prepared for Kitsap County, Washington February, 2008.
CDM, 2000. Draft Report on Operational Testing of Well 14, prepared for North Perry
Avenue Water District, Bremerton, WA, July 2000.
City of Bremerton, 2006. 2005 City of Bremerton Water System Plan, prepared by
Department of Public Works and Utilities, Bremerton, Washington, December,
2006.
Cox, S.E., 2003, Estimates of residence time and related variations in quality of ground
water beneath Submarine Base Bangor and vicinity, Kitsap County, Washington:
U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 03-4058, 52 p.
CR Hydrogeologic Consulting, 2005. North Perry Water District 2004 Water
Resources Monitoring Report, prepared for North Perry Avenue Water District,
Bremerton, Washington, January 24, 2005.
Didrickson, K, 2005. Hydrogeology of the Port Madison Indian Reservation and
Vicinity, Kitsap County, Washington, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation
with The Suquamish Tribe.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 37
Ecology, 2001. Report of Examination (ROE) for Change to Groundwater Certificate
G1-24717C, November 6, 2001.
Ecology, 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, WDOE Publication
Numbers 05-10-029 through 05-10-033, February 2005.
Ecology, 2008. Amended Reports of Examination, Change of Point of Withdrawal.
WRTS File # CG1-*04139C for Change to Groundwater Certificate 2865 and
WRTS File # CG1-*05258C for Change to Groundwater Certificate 4187, January
28, 2008.
EPA, 2002, “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual,” Office of Water, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/625/R-00/008.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Garling, N.E., and D.E. Molenaar, et al. 1965. Water Resources and Geology of the
Kitsap Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Washington State Division of
Water Resources Water Supply Bulletin No. 18.
Golder Associatec, Inc., 2005. Water Balance and Water use Refinements, prepared for
Keith Folkerts, Kitsap County & WRIA 15 Planning Unit, February 3, 2005.
Hansen, A.J. and E.L. Bolke, 1980. Ground-water Availability on the Kitsap Peninsula,
Washington, U.S. Geological Survery Water-Resources Investigations, Open File
Report 80-1186.
Hantush, M.S., 1964. “Hydraulics of Wells,” in Advances in Hydrosciences, Vol. 1, pp.
282-442, Academic Press, New York.
Hunt, B., 2005. Groundwater Analysis using FUNNCTION.XLS, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Kahle, S.C., 1998, Hydrogeology of Naval Submarine Base Bangor and Vicinity,
Kitsap County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 97-4060, Tacoma, Washington.
Golder Associatec, Inc., 2004. Water Balance and Water use Refinements, prepared for
Keith Folkerts, Kitsap County & WRIA 15 Planning Unit, February 3, 2005.
Keta Waters LLC, 2006. Storm Water Effects in Illahee Creek Watershed, prepared for
Illahee Forest Preserve, Bremerton, Washington
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 38
Kitsap County Department of Community Development, SpeakOut Watershed Details
Handout, March 2002
Kitsap County Department of Public Works, Kitsap County Stormwater Management
Ordinance and Design Manual, April, 1997.
Kitsap County Health District, Port Orchard/Burke Bay Watershed, 2004-05 WQ
Report.
Kitsap County Public Utility District, 1997. Kitsap County Initial Basin Assessment,
Open File Technical Report 97-04, October, 1997.
Langbein, W. B. and K.T. Iseri, 1960. Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-
Water Techniques, Methods and practices of the Geological Survey, U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1541-A,.
McMurphy, C. J., Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area, Washington, United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State
University, Agricultural Research Center, September 1980.
Soil Map: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Soil report: http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.html
Nolan, BK, 2001, Relating Nitrogen Sources and Aquifer Susceptibility to Nitrate in
Shallow Ground Waters of the United States, Ground Water, Vol. 39: 2, pp. 290-
299, March-April.
Pacific Groundwater Group, 2007. Current Conditions Report, Woodland Creek
Pollutant Load Reduction Project, prepared in conjunction with Brown and
Caldwell for Thurston County Public Health and Social Services, Olympia,
Washington, February 2007.
Parametrix and Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Draft Illahee Watershed Characterization and
Site Assessment. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. December 2007.
Robinson and Noble, 1985. Construction of Riddell Road Well 1 for North Perry
Avenue Water District, March, 1985.
Robinson and Noble, 2001. Silverdale Water District 16 Ridgetop Production Well 90-
day Pumping Test and Monitoring Results and Analyses, April, 2001.
Sceva, J.E., 1957. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Kitsap County
Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1413, Washington, D.C.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 39
Vaccaro, J.J., Hansen, A.J. Jr., and Jones, M.A., 1998, Hydrogeologic framework of the
Puget Sound Aquifer System, Washington and British Columbia: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1424-D, 1 plate, 77 p.
Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation
Engineerin Division, Technical Release 55 (TR-55), June, 1986.
ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/hydrology_hydraulics/tr55/tr55.pdf
van Heeswijk, M. and D.T. Smith , 2002, Simulation of the Ground-Water Flow System
at Naval Submarine Base Bangor and Vicinity, Kitsap County, Washington, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4261, Tacoma,
Washington.
URS, 2008. North Perry Avenue Water District Water System Plan Update, March
2008
Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 1998, Ground Water and
Surface Water - A Single Resource: USGS Circular 1139, 79 p.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 40
APPENDIX A
Water Rights
T25N, R01E, S36; T25N, R01E, S01; T25N, R02E, S31
File # Cert # Person Stat Doc Priority Dt Purpose Qi UOM Qa Ir
Acres TRS QQ/Q 1stSrc
S1-*01277CWRIS 407 Illahee Improvement Club A Cert 3/2/1925 DM 0.3 CFS 25.0N 01.0E 36 SE/SE SPRING
S1-*05625CWRIS 2722 HENDERSON G E A Cert 12/12/1941 IR,DM 0.02 CFS 25.0N 01.0E 36 NE/SW
S1-*09241CWRIS 4418 THOMPSON B B A Cert 12/1/1949 DS 0.01 CFS 25.0N 01.0E 36 NW/SE SPRING
S1-*18747CWRIS 9317 FUSON H ET UX A Cert 10/15/1964 DS 0.01 CFS 1 25.0N 01.0E 36 SE/NW SPRING
G1-00358CWRIS WA Natural Resources Dept A Cert 9/8/1971 IR 400 GPM 217 100 25.0N 01.0E 36 NW/NE WELL
G1-22646CWRIS MISSAL OTTO L A Cert 2/27/1976 DS 4 GPM 2 25.0N 01.0E 36 SW/NE WELL
G1-24718CWRIS North Perry Avenue Water Dist A Cert 9/19/1985 DM 300 GPM 384 25.0N 01.0E 36 SE/SE WELL
S1-*04097CWRIS 1506 SCHUTT R L A Cert 4/19/1935 IR,FS 0.23 CFS 2 25.0N 02.0E 31 STREAM
S1-*21093CWRIS 10658 MCDONALD C A Cert 7/17/1968 IR 0.02 CFS 1 0.5 25.0N 02.0E 31 STREAM
G1-*05258CWRIS 4187 North Perry Avenue Water Dist A Cert 5/20/1959 MU 630 GPM 1008 24.0N 01.0E 01 WELL
S1-*21072CWRIS 10952 PRATT J H A Cert 7/15/1968 IR 0.01 CFS 0.5 0.2 24.0N 01.0E 01 SPRING
G1-114698CL LINDGREN ARTHUR H A Claim L IR GPM 25.0N 01.0E 36 WELL
G1-110895CL MAURER O E A Claim L ST,DG GPM 25.0N 01.0E 36 WELL
G1-155466CL SANDFORD ELMA B A Claim L DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
G1-145719CL CLAEYS ROY A A Claim L DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
G1-125275CL YOUDERIAN CHAS H A Claim L IR,DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
S1-124663CL MILLER ERLAN J A Claim L IR,DG CFS 25.0N 02.0E 31 SPRING
G1-065360CL BARRAUGH DAVID A. A Claim L DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
G1-062755CL HENDRICKS DALE W. A Claim L DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
G1-055713CL MEYDENBAUER JR. ALBERT A Claim L IR,DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 SPRING
G1-023891CL QUALLS JOSEPH J. A Claim L DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31 WELL
G1-120943CL BOGEN JOHN A A Claim L DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01 WELL
S1-120944CL BOGEN JOHN A Claim L ST,DG CFS 24.0N 01.0E 01 STREAM
G1-074208CL ROBERTSON EARL K. A Claim L DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01 WELL
G1-131485CL BERGH NOEL W A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-126629CL BERGH NOEL W A Claim S IR,DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-076565CL HEPWORTH RAY E. A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-074119CL TROSTAD RODNEY C. A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 41
File # Cert # Person Stat Doc Priority Dt Purpose Qi UOM Qa Ir
Acres TRS QQ/Q 1stSrc
G1-069901CL SHOCK GLENN H. A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-047493CL JONES HARLEY A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-037647CL BRITTELL ROBERT M. A Claim S DG GPM 25.0N 02.0E 31
G1-154545CL MC INNES EUGENE A Claim S IR,DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01 WELL
G1-128396CL SMITH M J A Claim S DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01
G1-108655CL HALL VIRGIL W A Claim S IR GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01
G1-070703CL KOLLARS VIRGIL D. A Claim S DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01
G1-059203CL LAWRENCE ROBERT B. A Claim S DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01 WELL
G1-058089CL WILLIAMS THOMAS F. A Claim S DG GPM 24.0N 01.0E 01
S1-*02689AWRIS SCHMIDT GERTRUDE M I App 8/28/1929 IR,DS 0.05 CFS 2 25.0N 01.0E 36 SPRING
S1-*09240PWRIS THOMPSON BESSIE I Pmt 12/1/1949 IR 0.2 CFS 30 25.0N 01.0E 36 STREAM
S1-*02880PWRIS Illahee Improvement Club I Pmt 3/14/1930 MU 0.05 CFS 25.0N 02.0E 31 x SPRING
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 42
APPENDIX B – Group A and Group B Water Rights and Water Systems
Municipal water rights in the vicinity of the Illahee Creek watershed (URS, 2008; City of Bremerton, 2005)
Source Name Certificate Qa1
(af/y)
Qi2
(gpm)
2001
maximum
Qa (af/y)
2001
maximum
Qi (gpm)
North Perry Avenue Water District
609501 Center St 1 2862-A 432 P1 270 0 0
609502 Pickering St 2865-A 570 P 365 150 230
609503 Perry Ave 4187-A 1008 P 630 267 350
609504 Gilberton 1 G1-00589C 1440 P 900 185 450
609505 Gilberton 2 G1-23075C 640 P 400 14 165
609506 Meadowdale 1 5497-A 400 S3 250 0 0
609507 Sunset Ave G1-24090C 200 S 125 50 125
609508 Bucklin Hill G1-23781C 800 S 500 149 500
609509 Center St 2 G1-24717C 640 500 182 300
609510 Riddell Rd G1-24718C 384 S 300 92 250
609511 Meadowdale 2 G1-25664A 338 300 174 290
609512 Well 14 4 See note 1200 S 920 467 900
Total Permit 4090 5460 1730 3560
City of Bremerton
0820014 Well 13 G1-23367C 1088 P 680 P 550 594
0820015 Well 14 G1-23718C 800 P 400 P 238 315
Total Permit 1888 1080 788 909
1 Qa refers to the maximum permissible annual withdrawal at the well.
2 Qi refers to the maximum permissible pumping rate at the well.
3 “P” denotes primary rights and “S” denotes supplemental rights
4 Well 14 is an additional point of withdrawal for the Center street and Gilberton wells
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 43
Water rights and water use for wells completed in the permeable interbeds aquifer in the vicinity of Illahee Creek watershed.
Certificates Water use
Well Depth to
screen
(ft)
Qi
(gpm)
Qa
(af/yr)
Actual Qa
(af/yr)
Percentage
used
NPAWD Perry Avenue1 355 630 1,008 267 26%
NPAWD Pickering Street1 385 365 569.6 157 28%
NPAWD Center Street #21 209 500 640 236 37%
Bremerton Well 13 2 273 680 1088 821 75%
Bremerton Well 14 2 278 500 800 290 36%
1 Water right information from January 8, 2008 ROE’s. Water use is based on averages for the 10-year period from 1996 through 2005.
2 Data from 2005 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Water System Plan, Table 3.5, page 3-9
Group A and Group B water systems in the vicinity of Illahee Creek watershed (from DOH, Sentry)
DOH
Number Water System Name Group Population Connections
60950M NORTH PERRY AVE WATER DISTRICT A 15890 6356
08200 CITY OF BREMERTON A 50,978 23,765
891107 TRASK WATER WORKS B 8 3
04691V HOLM B 12 6
54691 HOLM 2 B 24 6
19050W DESERET PARK B 4 2
79100 SILVER BEACH COMMUNITY WATER B 24 12
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 44
Water sources for Group A and Group B water systems in the vicinity of Illahee Creek watershed (from DOH, Sentry)
Water System Source
Number
Source
Name
Depth
(ft)
Capacity
(gpm) Location1 Status DOH Exceedences
NORTH PERRY 1 Center 1 142 140 T24 R02E S07 NWNW Emergency manganese, iron
NORTH PERRY 2 Pickering 217 260 T24 R02E S07 NWSW Active None
NORTH PERRY 3 Perry 460 300 T24 R01E S01 NESE manganese
NORTH PERRY 4 Gilberton 1 800 480 T25 R02E S19 NWSW manganese
NORTH PERRY 5 Gilberton 2 490 80 T25 R02E S19 NWSW Active manganese
NORTH PERRY 6 Meadowdale 1 749 140 T25 R01E S25 NWSE Emergency manganese, iron
NORTH PERRY 7 Sunset 880 125 T25 R01E S25 SESE Active manganese
NORTH PERRY 8 Bucklin 1107 500 T25 R01E S14 SWSE Active manganese, iron
NORTH PERRY 9 Center 2 600 410 T24 R02E S07 NWNW Active iron, color
NORTH PERRY 10 Riddell 682 270 T25 R01E S36 SESE Active manganese
NORTH PERRY 11 Meadowdale 2 580 255 T25 R01E S25 NESW Active None
NORTH PERRY 12 Well 14 618 920 T25 R01E S26 NWNE Active Color
BREMERTON 23 Well 21 380 500 T25 R01E S26 Emergency
BREMERTON 14 Well 13 273 510 T25 R01E S34 NESE Active Manganese
BREMERTON 15 Well 14 278 180 T25 R01E S34 NESE Active Manganese
HOLM 1 265 5 T25 R01E S36 SWNE Active Manganese, color
HOLM 2 1 269 6 T25 R01E S36 SWNE Active Manganese, color
DESERET PARK 1 42 10 T25 R02E S30 SWSW Emergency Manganese
TRASK WATER 1 127 40 T25 R01E S25 Inactive None
SILVER BEACH 1 Well A 30 40 T25 R01E S34 NENW Inactive Manganese
1 Group A system locations are given in GPS coordinates and Group B system locations are given by township, range, and section
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 45
APPENDIX C
Normalized drawdowns observed during a 60-day pumping test at NPAWD well 14
The figure below includes normalized drawdowns in three wells during the 1999-2000
pumping test at NPAWD well 14. 8 The data included in this figure is derived from AGI,
1997b. All three wells are interpreted by Ecology to be in the deep aquifer system
(Ecology, 2001, Table 4, page 6). The maximum drawdowns during the pumping test
observed in Well 14, the Parkwood East well, and the Bucklin Hill well were
approximately 125.9 feet, 23.5 feet, and 3.9 feet, respectively. The Parkwood East well
is approximately 2,450 feet from Well 14 and the Bucklin Hill well is approximately
5,950 feet from Well 14. The drawdown values included in Figure 2 were obtained from
CDM (2000).
The drawdown curves in the figure below illustrate the effects of vertical leakage from
overlying aquifers. The rate of drawdown decreases with time (the curves becomes
“flat”) as more water is drawn through confining units. The time required before the
drawdown curves become flat increases for monitoring wells that are located further from
the pumping well. The solid curves included in the figure elow show calculated
drawdowns that were developed using the Hantush leaky aquifer equations (Hantush,
1964; Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The curves are fitted to the data by adjusting the aquifer
leakage factors.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in daysNormalized Drawdown Well 14
Leakage factor=6,500 ft
Bucklin well (r=5,950 ft)
Leakage factor=5,100 ft
Parkwood well (r=2,450 ft)
Leakage factor=7,400 ft
8 The normalized drawdown is simply the drawdown in each well divided by the maximum drawdown at
that well during the test. This normalization allows a convenient comparison of data from wells that
experience different degrees of water level decline because of different distances from the pumping well.
Illahee Watershed Aquifer Protection Plan, page 46
APPENDIX D
Equations used to develop impact curves for leaky aquifer systems
The drawdown caused by groundwater extraction in a leaky aquifer system is given by
the following expression:
=L
rKT
QrD oπ2)( (Equation 1)
where D(r) is the drawdown at distance, r, from the well, Q is the pumping rate, T is the
aquifer transmissivity, L is the leakage factor, and Ko is the modified Bessel function of
zero order (Hantush, 1964, p. 335, equation 55). The horizontal flow rate through a
cylinder with radius, r, from the well can be obtained from Darcy’s law by taking the
derivative of Equation 1 and multiplying it by the transmissivity, T, and the area
perpendicular to flow, 2πr:
=
∂
∂=∂
∂=L
rKL
Qr
L
rKrQrr
DrTQ or 1)2(π (Equation 2)
where K1 is the modified Bessel function of order one.
The values shown on the vertical axis in Figure C.3 in the main body are
calculated using the following expression:
Q
QQleakageDerivedr−=(%) (Equation 3)
where Q is the pumping rate at the well. As the radius, r, increases, the volume of
leakage increases (according to Equation 2) and the volume of horizontal flow in the
pumped aquifer must decrease to maintain a mass balance. The numerator in Equation 3
gives the volume of leakage that occurs within a radius, r.
Sidney Road SWSidney Road SWClear Creek Road NWClear Creek Road NWViking Way NWViking Way NWSilverdale Way NWSilverdale Way NWSeabeck Hi
ghway NWSeabeck Hi
ghway NWN W H o lly R o a d
N W H o lly R o a d
LLoonnggLLaakkeeRRooaaddSSEEBeachDriveEPhillips Road SEPhillips Road SESeabeck Holly Road NW
Seabeck Holly Road NW
Lost Highway WLost Highway WNoll Road NENoll Road NEDewatto Road WDewatto Road WWoods Road EWoods Road EBethel Rd SEBethel Rd SEPPrroovvoossttRRooaaddNNWWSE Mile Hill DriveSE Mile Hill DriveWidme Road NEWidme Road NENNWWAAnn dd ee rrssoonnHHiillllRRooaadd BBrroowwnnssvviillllee
HHiigghhwwaayyNNEE
NW Newberry Hill RoadNW Newberry Hill Road
NNeelllliittaaRRooaadd NN WW
GGoollddCCrreeeekkRRooaaddWWTracyton Boulevard NWTracyton Boulevard NWMMiinnnniiggLLaanneeNNWWSidney AvenueSidney Avenue6th Street S6th Street SCChhiiccooWWaayyNNWW NE McWilliams RoadNE McWilliams Road
NW Bucklin Hill RoadNW Bucklin Hill Road
NE Riddell RoadNE Riddell Road
SE Lund AvenueSE Lund Avenue Ogl
eRoadNEWW BBee ll ffaaiirrVVaalllleeyyRRooaaddCentral Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadPerry Avenue NEPerry Avenue NELLaarrssoonnLLaanneeNNWW
DNR Forest RoadDickey Road NWDickey Road NWRocky Point Road NWRocky Point Road NWLLeemmoo ll oo SShhoorreeDDrriivveeNNEE
NW Gross RoadNW Gross Road
E Collins RoadE Collins Road
5th Street S
Pottery AvenuePottery AvenueMarine DriveRRiiddggeettoopp BBoouulleevv aa rr dd NN WW
NE Tolo Road
Holman Street S
E Polk Street
NW Bonkla Lane Willamette Meridian Road NWWillamette Meridian Road NWNNEECCoolluummbbiiaaSSttrreeeett
Naval AvenueNE Sylvan WayNE Sylvan Way
NE Winston Drive
Diane Court NENW Mountain View RoadNW Mountain View Road
Nelson Road NENelson Road NESSWWOOllddCClliiffttoonnRRooaaddTrenton Avenue NETrenton Avenue NE1155tthh SSttrreeeett SS
GG
oolldd
CC
rr
eeeekkRRooaa
dd
NNWWFFjjoorr
ddDDrriivveeNNEE
KingswayNWPark Avenue1st Street S High AvenueSpringridge Road NESpringridge Road NEPioneer Road NWPioneer Road NW4th Avenue NELLoooonneeyyTTuunneeLLaanneeNNWWFFiirrDDrriivveeNNEEWW BBeeaarrCCrreeeekkRR ooaadd Wycoff Avenue NNE Hostmark StreetNE Hostmark Street
Harris Road SELost Creek Lane NWLost Creek Lane NWPPeetteerrHHaaggeennRRooaaddNNWWS h o r eRoadBBeetthheellAAvveennuueeAnderson Hill Road SWAnderson Hill Road SWCristalSpringsDriveNEWWCCaammpp SS uu nnddoowwnn RR oo aa dd
Garfield Avenue SERandall Way NWIIllllaahheeee
RR
oo
aa
dd
NN
EE
Montgomery AvenueNN WW WW aaddeeRRooaadd
TTrr
aacc
yytt
oonn
BB
ee
aa
cc
hh
RRooaaddNNWW Caldart Avenue NEHolland Road NWOlding RoadN E Bahi
a
Vi
staDrLebo Boulevard
Lebo Boulevard
SW Berry Lake RdSW Berry Lake Rd
NN
EE
PP
aauullssoonn RRooaadd
NE 30th StreetNE 30th Street
National Avenue WVViirrggiinniiaa LLoooopp NNEE
TTaahhuuyyeehhLLaakkeeRRooaaddNNWWNW Klahowya Trail Arrow Point Drive NEW Werner RoadW Werner Road GeorgeLaneNEAA
uu
tt
oo
CC
ee
nntteerr
WWaayyWW Olympus Drive NEFrender Lane NWFrender Lane NW Central Valley Road NWCentral Valley Road NWSS EE WW ooooddssRRooaaddSE Alson CtSE Alson Ct
NN
WW
WW
iilldd
cc
aa
tt
LLaakkee RR ooaaddTTeekkiiuuRRooaaddNNWW
Mahan Avenue
Opdal Road ENW Fairgrounds RoadNW Fairgrounds Road
N W A pexR o a d Old Military Road NEOld Military Road NEKegleyRoadNWNNWW WWeesstt gg aa tt ee RR ooaa dd
Pacific AvenueEHillcrest Dr i v e
Kingsw
ay
WNE John Carlson RoadNE John Carlson Road SSaallttaaiirrDDrriivveeNNEELLaakkeevviieewwDDrriivveeSSEENNWWCC oohhooRR uunn
HintzvilleRoadNWMMiinnaarrddRRooaaddWWMMaayyvvoollttRR ooaa dd SS EETurko Lane NWTurko Lane NWNN WW MMyyhhrreeRR
oo
aaddSem inoleRoadNELLiinnccoollnnAAvveennuueeSSEEAlbright Avenue SERickey RoadEchoValleyRoadNWNNWW LLooiiss DDrriivvee
Cantu Lane NW
Cantu Lane NW LevinRo a d N WSSWW BBaarrnneeyyWWhhiitteeRRooaaddWW SSoouutt hh KKeeyyppoorrtt
RR
ooaaddNNEESesame Street NWSesame Street NWNN WW HHiittee CCeenntteerr RRooaadd Bay Ridge Drive NWBay Ridge Drive NWStampede Boulevard NWStampede Boulevard NWSSWW IImmppeerriiaallWWaayy Shor
ewo
o
d
D
rive
Locker Road SELocker Road SEAlmira Drive NEWheaton Way WMenzies Road SEMenzies Road SENW Ioka DriveNW Ioka Drive
NE Marshall Road
CCoonnvveerrsseeAAvveeSSEESSttoonneeFFaarrmmLLaanneeNNWWOld Sawmill Place NWCline AveNW M a r ksR oa d
P i lo t L a n e S W
NNWW TTrriiggggee rr AAvveennuuee
Hinkley Road SESSaanndd DDooll llaa rr RRoo aadd WW Kimble Road EBBrriiddlleettrreeeeDDrriivveeNNWWNwHopeStreetSSiirrooccccooCCiirrcclleeNNWW
KeanStre
et
SSE Foss Road
NN WW OOlldd HH oollllyyHH iillllRRooaadd
NW Silver Street
LewisRoad N W WWiillddRRiiddggeeLLaanneeNNWWPP aa nn tthh ee rr LL aakkeeRRooaaddWW Lester Road NWNE Fuson Road
CChhrriissttoopphheerrRRooaaddNNWW
Feigley Road SWFeigley Road SWHintzville R oa d
NNWW FFoouurrhheeee llDDrriivvee WW Almira Drive NEMarion AvenueAAllppeenngglloowwDDrriivveeNNWWNE Pearle StreetNE Pearle StreetCox Road NWNNoo rrtthh MMiissssii
oo
nn
RR
ooaadd
WW Corey Lane NECorey Lane NELidstrom Road ENW Selbo RoadSunsetLaneNW
NW O ne M i le R o a dNW O ne M i le R o a d
Aiken Road SEWWSShheerrmm aannHHeeiigghhttssRR oo aa dd
NE Winters Road
NW Go eske Ln NWDrago n f lyDr
N E C o n if e r D riv
eW H a r vestLan e
N EW illia m utt o nRoadS
Sunset Avenue NESunset Avenue NENW Duryea DriveNW Duryea Drive
NNWW FFrreeddddiiee''ssLLaannee
NW Turnstone LaneNW Turnstone Lane Cheyney Lane NWCheyney Lane NWBW StreetWW WWiillddee rr nn ee ss ss LLaannee Rest Place NEH o rs t m a n RdOld Frontier Road NWOld Frontier Road NWBa
e
r
B
oulevard
Broussard Lane WW Frone Dr
NN
WWBBoonnddaallee LLaannee
C a l u metDriveNWBeauchampLane NW
NWC ascad e Stre
e
tHideaway Lane NWSSeeaa bb eecckkHHoollllyyRRooaaddWWHarold Drive SEFinley Road NECCaallaammii ttyy LL aa nneeNNWWCadmarLaneNWNNEE MMaaddiissoonn RRooaadd
NW Nicholas StreetNW Nicholas Street
Kent Avenue WSandy Road NENE 3rd Street NNE 3rd Street NRising Hill Lane NWN E V irginiaPointRoadM adronaPointDriveN E A v e ry Lane
Meadowood Drive WMeadowood Drive WCourtney Lane NECourtney Lane NEWWTT iigg ee rr LL aakkeeRRooaadd
S E L a k e V a lleyRoadNebraska Avenue SENebraska Avenue SEDiamond Drive NEMorga nmarshLaneWNE Tuk-wil-la RdStavisast Dri
ve NWNNWWIIsskk rraa BB oouu ll ee vv aa rr dd
S E S k y c r e s t L
aneNE Skinner Road
NE Anna Road
Brasch Road SEBrasch Road SEW W in t er
Gree n L aneSherman AvBruenAvenueTowne R o a d N E
Longhorn Drive NWOrweiler Lane NWJermar Lane NW9th Street S9th Street S Taft AvenueNW Nichols Avenue
SS aa llmm oonnbbeerrrryyDDrriivveeSSEENW David Road Sandra Lane NENWWa lke r R o a d
GloryLaneN W
El Cimo Lane NEWorrall Dr
NW Big Bird Drive NWPud d i n g s t o n e L a n e
NWWalgren D rive
FerateAvSECChhrriissttiinneeLLaanneeNN WWNNWWCCaattssPPaawwLLaannee
K e l l y R o a d
NE June Lane
NW Beth Lane
E LaSalle St
WWCCrriitttteerrCCrreeeekk LL aa nn ee
NE Echo Drive
Bodle Road SEBoon e Ro
a
d
N E S ip e s L a
neAviator Lane N
W
S E C o n ife r ParkD r i v e
NE 72nd Street
W Zircon Lane
NW Hosman CircleNW Hosman Circle
NE Dawn Road
NE Heron Pond Lane
Page Road NWN W India
n
Ridg e D r i v e
NE Hyak Way
Sroufe St S
NW Hood Canal Fa rm s Road
NN WW SShheerrmmaann
HHiillll
RRooaadd
NE Buckskin Lane
NE Dapple CourtHansen Road NEFletcher Bay Rd NE
NE Foster Road
NE North Tolo Rd
Arrow Po int D rive N E
Battle Point Drive NEJ e nsen
WayNENE Lincoln Road6th Avenue NEFjord Drive NEGeiger Road SESouth St SJubilee Lane NWJungle Ct NW
NW Shadow Glen Blvd
RidgeNW DriveManley Road NWSE Meline Road Deerpath Lane NEBranson Drive SENW Heritage Ln
SE Vallair Court Robinson Rd NEN W R i v erLaneNE Robbie Court
CampLn NWAlmira DriveFern Avenue NENW Schold R oadNW Schold R oad HaufLan e N W
Lonerock Lane NWFront Avenue WW Alder StKaija Lane NWKaija Lane NWNW Sigurd Hanson Road
Westwood Road NE
NW Luquasit Trail
SE Maple St
NW Chrey Lane
26th Street S
Weathers Court SENE Normandy Dr
Pullman Place SWClearcreek Court NWClearcreek Court NWS
olid
L
n
WNW Starwood Ln
NW Bryan RoadNW Bryan Road
NW J oe ls C o ur t
Farmer Dell Road ENE Edwin Court
Radey St S Rockwell AvNE Tagholm Road
Harrison AvePetersville Road NEPetersville Road NENorth Forest Dr NEBaby Doll Road SEBaby Doll Road SENW View Terrace
NW E ld orad o Blvd
NW KnuteNW KnuteAnderson RdAnderson Rd
IIllllaahhee
eeRRooaadd NN EE
SSWWIImmppeerriiaallWWaayyChico Way NWChico Way NWSW Old Clifton Road Spr
i
ngr
i
dge Rd NEOOllddMMiilliittaarryyRRooaaddNNEECentral Valley RoadCentral Valley RoadB a t t l e PointD rive NE
Peru Av ESE Saddle Club Rd
SE Sedgwick RoadSE Sedgwick Road
WW eessttBBeellffaa iirrVV aa llllee yy RRooaadd
SSeeaabbeecckkHHoollllyy RR oo aa dd NN WW Seabeck Highway NWSeabeck Highway NWOl
y
mpi
c
Vi
e
w Ro
a
d NWOl
y
mpi
c
Vi
e
w Ro
a
d NWNNEETTootttteennRRooaaddSSuuqquuaammiisshhWWaayyNN EENN EE LL ii nn cc oo llnnRRooaaddOld Military Road NEOld Military Road NEWidme Road NEWidme Road NENE Pine Street
Urban Avenue NE
NE Henderickson Road
Lau r a LoopNE
CedarGroveRdNE
NE Mesford Street S
NE Jacobson Rd W
NE Em erald Lane
NE Agate Lane
Widme Road NE
NE WagonheelLn W11th Avenue NE10thAvenueNENE I v e rsonRoadNE Ridgewood StF
ront Street NEFront Street NEViking Way NWViking Way NWNW Britetar Lane S
NW Sharon Lane
Vincent Road NWVincent Rd NW
NW S u n de R oa d
NW Luoto Court
NE Evans Lane
N E M t Myste r y L o o p
R idgeNWDriveWestridgeDriveNWNWIslandLake Road
NNWWIIssllaannddLLaakkeeRRooaaddRRiiddggeettoo
pp
BBoouulleevvaarrddNNWWRi
dgepointD r i v e N W
NW M is tyRidge L an e
Marigold
DriveNW
H i llsboro Driv eNWSScchhoollddRRooaaddNNWW
NW Palmer Lane
NE Watson CourtNelslson Road NENE Foster RoadNE Foster Road
NE Conifer Drive
NE Conifer DriveRoyal Valley Road NERingstad Lane NENE Arrowhead Drive Navajo Trail NENavajo Trail NEWembly Av NEClover Blossom Ln NEMadrona Ave NEIllahee Road NEBlackbird Dr NENEMcWilliamsCourtNE Dawn Road
NE Franklin Avenue
NE Vena StNE Vena St
NW Tracy Av
Naomi Street NWMariah Lane NE Corfu Blvd NENW 73rd St
NE Rose LaneTibardis Road NWN E S a t u r n ) L a n eNWBarkerCreekRdDahl Lane NWBlaineAvNWSilverdale Loop NWSilverdale Loop NWNW Munson St
Washington Av NWFrontier Place NWNW Norhinkle Ln
Randall W ay NW
Monte VistaLane NWNW Chena Road
Bunker Street SSylvan Way WSylvan Way W
AppaloosaWayNEPine Road NENE 31st St
Sheridan RoadSheridan RoadRobin AvEagle AvHanford AvNE Pinewood Dr
Halverson AvenueSchley BlvdWinfield AvWinfield AvNipsic AvenueE 17th St
Hayward AvenueJacobson Blvd NENE Helm Street
Stone Way W
S h o re D riv eE 13th Street
Cascade View
Alder St S Ridgeview Dr NEViewcrest Dr NEPine Avenue NENW BridleRid ge B l v d
NEEnetaiB e a c h R o a dOlympic View Loop NWOlympic View Loop NWNW Jupiter Trail
NW Illich Road
NW G ust afson Ro ad
NW Uff Da Lane
Willamette Meridian Road NWWillamette Meridian Road NWLathrop Lane NWNW Littlewood Ln
NW Whisper Street
Jeffery Lane NWGraystone Way NWNW Quiet View LaneAndersonLanding
NWWinterberry Place NWLarson Lane NWNW Dishman RoadNW Dishman RoadTurkoLaneNWP
i
o
neerRoadNW
MMiiaammiiBBee
aacchhRRooaaddNNWW
NNWWSSttaavviissBBaayyRRooaaddNW Maple Lane
Foley Lane NWNW
Stavis Bay Road
Frenchman s C oveLnNWNellita Road NW
Nellita Road NW
Mallard Lane NWMallard Lane NWRaptor Lane NWW Ho mestead L aneFeather Lane NWFeather Lane NWSouth Mission Road WFrender Lane NWFrender Lane NWBigBeefCrossingNWBoundaryTrailNWBarefoot Lane NWLonetar Lane NWNW Northridge Ln NW Windjammer Court
NW RhododendronNW RhododendronHeights Heights
Erlands Po int Roa d NW
NW Golf Club Hill Road
Kitty
HawkDriveNW
Wheaton Way W
Wheaton Way WCherryAvenueCallahanDrive
Jackson Avenue SEJackson Avenue SEErlands Point Road NWErlands Point Road NWErlands Point Road NWHavenRoadAustin DriveLyle AvenueCarr BoulevardKi
t
sap Way WKi
t
sap Way WLakehurst Drive NWH
arlowDrive
Wilmont Street S
Price RoadWest Kitsap Lake Road WWWee
ss
tt
KKiittssaappLLaakkeeRRooaaddNNWWOsprey CircleLilac LaneSunnyhill Road WOyster Bay AvenueOyster Bay Avenue WCharlotte Avenue WDora Avenue WBremerton Blvd W6th Street S
Lafayetteouth Avenue SWycoffouth Avenue SPreble Street S
W A r s e n a l W a yW A r s e n a l W a yBertha Avenue NWMorgan Road NWCorbet DriveLafayette AvenueCallow AvenueCallow AvenueSnyder Avenue NMarine Drive
Marine DriveNW
PhinneyBay Dr
13th Street S13th Street S
Hewitt Avenue11th Street S11th Street S
8th Street S
11th Street S
NW 18th Street
10th Street S
West Street SPleasant AvenueHighland AvenueChester AvenueSW Hanson Rd
SW WhitecapLane Ohio AvenueElizabeth AvenueRainier AvenueGoldenrod St S
South Flower AveSouth Flower AveLippert Drive WLippert Drive W
Melcher St S
PPoorrttOOrrcchhaarrddBBoouulleevvaarrddHull AvKendall St SKendall St SSidney AveKitsap St S
Mitchell Road SEMayest St W
SE Blueberry RoadSE Blueberry Road
Ramsey Road SES
E Lu
nd A
venue
S
E Lu
nd A
venue
Chase Rd SEChase Rd SESE Forest Villa Ct
SE Sylvis Lane
SE Sleepy Hollow CourtMadrona Drive SEMadrona Drive SEFircrestDrive
S
E
Pine Tree Drive SEMadrona Drive SEPerry AvFarragut AveFarragut AveMitchell AvTracy AvRetsil Rd EOOllnneeyyAAvveennuueeEEE Lidstrom Hill Road
Whittier Ave SEBulman Rd SEMountain View Drive EMarlin Drive SESE Heather Lane
Lars Hansen Road SEClover Valley Road SEClover Valley Road SEDogwood Rd SEGGlleennwwooooddRRooaaddSSWWOakhurstLaneSWWeyers Lane SWRainbow Ridge Ln SWM
ar
y
macDriveSWTroonAvenueSWSunnyslope Road SWVViiccttoorryyDDrriivveeSSWWSW Rhododendron Dr
SW Northview Drive
SW Hudson Drive
S W44 th S t
AlamedaAvSW Delia Ln SWDivision Av WDivision Av WHamilton Rd WConstance Drive SWWilkinson Road WArmstrong Lane NEW ayneRoadWTekiu Road NWLorelei Ln NWKomichanLaneNWLLeeggeennddLLaanneeNNWWC
a
tt
ail L
a
n
e
N
WHood Point Rd NWNW Seaview DriveSeaview Drive NWBlue Mountain Ln NWNW Northwo ods StMiami Beach Road NWMMiisseerryyPPooiinnttRRooaaddNNWWPriddy Vista Rd NWPioneer Road NW
Nakoosa Lane NWImpassePlaceNW
LeeNWAve
NW Bison Ln
NW Gumtree Ln
NW Segerman Ln
NW Mathwig Ln
Mt. Vista Lane NWNWIokaWayNW Ioka DrNW Paddington Ct
NW HerriedRoad
NW Island Lake Prk Wy
FranSW LaneL
i
e
s
ekeLan
e
SWVirginia Loop NENWScandiaRoad
Washington Av NEOldMilitaryRdN ENE Maryott Lane
Kelly Court NEHansen Road NEPalomino Drive NEE Hilldale Road
E Beaver Creek RoadKari Lane NWPayne Ln NW
Martin Avenue ESE Truman Street
Aspen Street SEVillage Ln SEWWeessttmmiinnsstteerrDDrrSSEESE N aviga ti o n L n
Colonial Ln SEKarcher Rd SEWarner Av SEHillandaleDrEE Tartan Ln
SSEEHHoorrssttmmaannRRddSE Horstman RdE Orchard Ln
E Collins RoadE Collins Road
Dekalb St SDekalb St S Retsil Rd EPark Av EAhl
s
t
r
o
m Rd EMaple AvMelcher St S
West AvJ
e
f
fersonAveSESE Forest Haven LanePe r demc o AvSESE Concept Ln
K.C. Place SESE Donato Ln
Ives Mill Rd SE
SE Bethel Valley Ln
SW Cook RoadSW Cook Road
Shawn Rd SWPottery AvT re m o n t S tre e t S
Converse Av SESE Villa Carmel DrSE Villa Carmel Dr
Sherlyn Av SEWoods Road EBeach Drive ENW Eldorado BoulevardNW Eldorado BoulevardNW Caitlin StRoundup Lane NWRoundup Lane NWSackman Lane NEChummitLaneNEPtarmigan Lane NWHHaallllmmaannRRooaaddNNWWNW P e t e rson R oadHallman
Road
N
W
NE KedrosDrive
Sandy Hook Road NEAr r ow he a dPl N E
Kelley's Glen Lane NWKelley's Glen Lane NWDeepellLn NWCantuLn NWBURWELL STBURWELL ST WARREN AVEWARREN AVENNWWSSTTAA VV IISS BB AA YY RR DD
NW Mosher Canyon Road
Laurelhurst Cort ez PlaceNWFox RunNW Tibardis Road
Red Oaks Ct
Peterson Road
NW Sherwood Street
NW Wrangler Court
Parkdale Drive NW
F ir G la deDriveNWBridlevale Blvd NW
Orrfelt DriveHarvard Ct
NW Fairwood Way
N WSa n JuanDr
Oak Park PLNE Buckeye Lane
NE Mulberry Lane
NESilverPineDriveN E C o tto n wood Drive
V a lle y O a k Drive
NE Silver Pine Drive
NERedbud Lan e
FalconPlaceNENE Regal Court
Graceland Road NENE Bentley Drive
Townsend Lane N
E
Johnson Road NENEEtonLane
WellingtonLaneNENE
Meadowla r k C ir c leLazyS
LaneNENE Shady Lane
Troy Lane NE
TroyLaneN E
NE Treemont Court
NEGoldenRodAvenue
Thasos Avenue NEAegean Blvd NEAegean Blvd NENESheffield
Plac e
HelenaDriveNENE Athens Way Sunset Avenue NETricaAvenueNEGrevenaAvenueNENE
Quinau ltDriveHick Avenue NEEast Blvd NEVarsity Lane NEWashington Street NE5th Avenue NENE Arizona StreetRoanokeRoadNENE Utah StreetHamling Lane NWNW Westmont Lane
St Johns Place NE
HillriseCourtNECovina Loop NE
N E C oc oCourt Steele Creek Loop NENE Magnum Court
Sungate Place NELazy S Lane NEKaster Drive NEOxbow Avenue NEForestRidgeDrive
Spa rtacusStreetDelphiLoo
p
N
E UniversityPointCircle NE
Lewis Drive NENED erekDriveNELuxuryLan e
NE Roosevelt Street
NE Nobles Lane
N Olympus Drive NENE Cheryl Street
Forest Drive NENE Ivy Road
SpruceAven u e
Harbel Drive NENE Ivy Road
Hollis Street
NE 40 t h Place
NE David Drive
NW Essex Street NEPinecrestD riv eNEWoodsPlace
NE Teri CourtNW Eells Road
NW Paxford Lane
NW Holmberg Street
N
E B
ea
u
m
o
nt La
n
e
Gateway Lane NENE Michelle Court
NE Marric Court
NE Rim Rock Drive
PainterStreet NWHartStreet NWSilverBeachDriveNWDarling Road NW BroncoPlaceNWSkyview Place NWCCoobbii PPllaa
cc
eeNNWWNW Rydan CtNWLondonderryLoopBerryridge Ln NWGrouse Lane NWAndrea Lane NWMonacoPlNWCathedral
Pl
NWNW M y les Ct NWHolly ParkD rive
NW Newberry LaneAmethyst
L
o
o
pNWN W BryceCtEmeryBlvdNWNWKyleCourt
NW F r ancis
Dr
NorbertPlNWDanielPlNWYvonnePlNWNW 82nd Street
ClearidgeAveNWDickeyPlNWNW Sealpoint Ln LupineLaneNWNWShelley Drive
MorningSide D r ive NWNWDreamCt
Martin Avenue NWErie Ave NWNW Lowell St
B ayShoreDriveNWPoplarsAvenueNWNW
A
n
d
e
rs
o
n
Hill
R
d SSiillvveerrddaalleeWWaayyNNWWTracytonBoulevardNWNW Creekside Lane
NW Lucky Lane
A v a n teDriveNWLa
ke
Ave
NWNW Marmot Circle ConnorLoopNWLakeridgeCirNWGraniteLnNWDanskin
L
n
N
WLakeShoreDriveNWNWForestCreek Dr
Cedar Ave NWFir Avenue NWHemlock Ave NWLakeview Ave NWNEPettersonRdAland Lane NEEl
wha Terrace NENEGrandview B lv d
KestrelPlaceNEGraywolfPlaceNESundayValleyLaneNE
WWeesstt
MM
cc
KKeennnnaa FFaallllss RRooaadd
MMccCCoorrmmiicckkWWooooddssDDrriivveeSSWWHHaawwkkssttoonneeAAvveennuueeSSWWLLoonnggLLaakkeeRRooaaddSSEESycamore Ln NENE Beaumont Ln
NE Sutton Pl
NE Melanie Ct
NE Tracy Ave
Benit
a
PlNENEClearvie
wLnNE Roswell Dr
T
r
a
c
y
t
on
BlvdNW
NW Vermont Ln
NWHuckle D rFredrickson Rd NWRichardson Rd NWSpinnakerBlvdN
W
Olson Rd NWNW Mahogany Ln
NW Hogan Ln
NW 1st St
Sunrise Ter NEOlive Ave NEO
ce
a
n
Vie
w
Blv
d
N
E
NEShor eCliffStRegattaPlNENW Byron St
NE School StreetNW Lowell St
NW CarltonSt
Pacific Ave NWNW Highland Ct
Ashley CirNW
Wh
arfPlNWAvellanaCirNWNW Flintwood Ct
NW Airpark Ct
NW Aileron Ct
NW Contact CtNW Redfern Ct
NW Goldfern Ct
EBlaisdell Ln
E Harbor Heights Dr RichViewDrEE Michigan St
SE Cleveland St
SE Kansas St
SE LeGrand St
SEB a sswo o dLnSE GreenBriar Pl
SE Castlewood Dr
SE Tamarack Dr
SE Pine Tree Dr
Parkwood Dr SELund Ave SERed Spruce Dr SE
Ponderosa Dr S E
SE Em press Ct
SE S axon CtSE Buckingham Dr
SE S umm er Pl
SE Azalea Balsam Blvd SECreekViewCtSEBriarwood Dr SECeleste Ct SESE A rie Ct
SE Elw ood Ct
SE Elw ood Ct
SE A melia CtDel Tormey Pl SEDurand Pl SESE Calaveras
Eastwood Dr SESETra vera Dr
SE Goldm aur Ct
Phillips Rd SESE Devonshire Pl
Hoover Ave SESeiford Ave SESE Hasting Ln
SE Richmond Ln
SE Cedar Rd Grandridge D r S E
SEGrandhave n St
Granad a Pl SE
Dana Dr SE
SE Celebrity CtEstonia Ct SEKerry Ln SESE PennswoodCtHillwood Ln SE CandyLoopN E
CreativeDriveNENorumRoadNENW Lusby Lane
BurkeBay AgateManzanitaBayChico Bay
Oyster
Ostrich
Phinney
Bay
Bay
Bay
Port
Washington
Narro
w
s
DogfishBay
ANDERSON COVE
BayStavis
Big
B
e
e
f
HarborNe Si Ka Bay
Sinclair I n le tPortOrchardBayPortOrchardBayLi
b
e
rty
Bay
Dy
es
InletHoodCanalHoodCanalSeabeckBay
Panther
Mission
L
a
k
e
Lake
Lake IslandLakeWildcat
Kitsap
Lake
LakeLakeSymington
Tahuyeh
BangorLake
CarterPond
Beaver DamLake
Tin MineLake
LewisDam
HintzvilleBeaverPonds
McCaslinMarsh
TigerLake TwinLakes
NorthLake
HoneyLake
BerryLakes
GazzamLake
LudvickLake
Union RiverReservior
Illahee State Park
Tracy ton
Gilberton
UniversityPoint
WindyPoint
MiseryPoint
Sc eni c B each
Mapl e B each
Hoo dPoint
Sea be ck
Miami Beach
TekiuPoint
Holly
Nellita
Keyport
Pearson
MALLKITSAPAPEX AIRPORTBassPoint
ErlandsPoint
Sunnyslope
Rock yPoint
ElwoodPoint
PointWhite
Wate rm anPoint
PointBolin
Sa n d yHook
ArrowPoint
BattlePoint
Annapolis
PointHerron
Brownsville
Manzanita
CrystalSprings
Lemolo
Scandia
Waterman
M A S O N C O U N T Y
M A S O N C O U N T YC O U N T Y
J E F F E R S O N
Manette
Enetai
Port Orchard
PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
Retsil
MadronaPoint
Naval Undersea Warfare
Engin eering Sta tion
Illahee
Poulsbo
Silverdale
Bangor
Naval SubmarineBase Bangor
Cam p U nio n
C r o s by
RossPoint
PointTurner
COM M ISSIONER DISTRICT 3KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NWI O NHSAGT
SIKT A P YUCONT Kitsap County Depa rtment of Community Development614 Div ision Street, MS -36, Port Orchard, Washington 98366VOICE (360) 337-7181 * FAX (360) 337-4925
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
KITSAP COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MAP SERIES
This map represents the Zoning Map adopted with Kitsap County'sComprehensive Plan as approved by the Kitsap County Board ofCommissioners on May 7, 1998.
This map is effective as of June 30, 2016 supercedingprevious zoning maps.
The zone designations are defined in the text of Kitsap CountyOrdinance No. 216-1998 (Zoning Ordinance) which is availablefrom the D epartment of Community Development.
NOTE:This map was developed for general land use planning purposes.The user of this map must assume responsibility for determiningits suitability for other purposes.
Amendments:February 8, 1999 Forest Resource LandsApril 19, 1999 Suquamish Rural VillageMay 10, 1999 Modified Joint Planning AreasJuly 21, 1999 Port Gamble Rural Historic TownJune 10, 2002 Manchester Community PlanJune 10, 2002 Ord No. 274-2002 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsSeptember 8, 2003 Res No. 168-2003 (Map Corrections)December 8, 2003 Ord No. 311-2003 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsOctober 25, 2004 George's Corner Commercial LAMIRDOctober 25, 2004 Ord No. 326-2004 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 22, 2005 Ord No. 352-2005 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 11, 2006 Ord No. 370-2006 10-Year UpdateJune 11, 2007 Ord No. 384-2007 Repeal of Urban Holding Zone (UHA)November 19, 2007 Ord No. 402-2007 Keyport Community PlanDecember 31, 2007 Ord No. 405-2007 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsOctober 13, 2008 Ord No. 414-2008 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 23, 2008 Ord No. 420-2008 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 14, 2009 Ord No. 443-2009 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 15, 2010 Ord No. 467-2010 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsDecember 15, 2010 Ord No. 467-2010 Type III LAMIRDSAugust 31, 2012 Ord No. 493-2012 2012 Urban Growth Area - RemandDecember 13, 2012 Ord No. 498-2012 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning AmendmentsJanuary 15, 2014 Ord No. 511-2013 Gorst Watershed PlanJune 30, 2016 Ord No. 534-2016 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Update
Map Date: June 2016
Zoning
Effective February 15, 1999Amended June 30, 2016
Rural Residential (1 DU/5 Ac)
Rural Protection (1 DU/10 Ac)
Rural Wooded (1 DU/20 Ac)
Forest Resource Lands (1 DU/40 Ac)
Rural Commercial
Rural Industrial
Industrial
Neighborhood Comm ercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Commercial (10-30 DU/Ac)
Regional Center (10-30 DU/Ac)
Urban Restricted (1-5 DU/Ac)
Urban M edium Residential (10-18 DU/Ac)
Urban High Residential (19-30 DU/Ac)
Urban Low Residential (5-9 DU/Ac)
Greenbelt (1-4 DU/Ac)
Incorporated City
Military
Park
Commissioner District 3
Tax Parcels
Urban Growth Area Boundary
Incorporated City Boundary
Mi xed Use areas or small communities intensively developed by 1990,where limited i nfill development is appropriate
Lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new developmentof isolated cottage industries and isolated small businesses
Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development - Type III
Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development - Type I
State Highway
Arterial
Collector
Railroad Lines
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
Published for
November 1
Council Meeting
Item 3 – Mayor’s Report
MAYOR’S REPORT
November 1, 2023
Goals:
•Communicate proactively issues that
have historically generated questions,
including water flushing, snowplows,
etc.
•Highlight issues of general interest to
the public
•Highlight positions and programs
traditionally less visible from the public,
such as stormwater, Customer
Response communication, safety
programs, etc.
Public Works Facebook Page
Public Works & Utilities new Facebook is Live!
www.facebook.com/bremertonpublicworks
Washington & 11th Street Update
Construction Status and Anticipated Schedule
Initial Lower Washington Ave reconstruction substantially completed in October
New sidewalk, storm drainage improvements, added local parking, and street paving
Temporary construction suspension estimated to occur through late January 2024 due to
weather and delivery timelines
Full closure and detour of 11th St and Washington Ave (Pacific Ave –Manette Bridge)
to occur in February 2024 for approximately 4 months to expedite remaining
construction
Local access to be provided –No impacts to Manette Bridge traffic
Further information will be communicated by Public Works prior to remaining
construction
Monthly construction reports are available on the project website
Washington & 11th Street Update
Lower Washington Avenue Improvements
Before After
Check out this year’s Kitsap Salmon tours on November 4, 2023 from 10-2pm.
Visit various stream sites across Kitsap County, including City of Bremerton’s
Jarstad Park! Explore all things salmon with local environmental organizations,
trained docents and more. Event being held rain or shine!
More information and list of sites are available on kitsapsalmontours.com.
The Washington Arts Commission just notified the City of Bremerton
they have approved our Creative District Certification!
We will be providing more information in a future meeting. Thank you to
all involved in making this certification possible!
Creative Art District
*A Certified Creative District is a geographically defined area of cultural and economic activity
recognized by the State of Washington as a place for people to gather and enjoy their community’s arts,
culture, and creativity.
Published for
November 1
Council Meeting
Item 5 – Public Recognition
From: Travis Merrigan <bikebremerton@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 12:26 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; David.nelson@kitsapsun.com
Subject: Request: include article in Nov 1 City Council Meeting documents
Council Meeting documents. The article which I wrote is also available here:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/10/26/the-17-year-odyssey-for-bremertons-6th-street-bike-lane/
Thank you,
Travis Merrigan
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/10/26/the-17-year-odyssey-for-
bremertons-6th-street-bike-lane/
The 17-Year Odyssey for Bremerton’s 6th
Street Bike Lane
By Travis Merrigan
October 26, 2023
A young cyclist rides a narrow sidewalk on Bremerton’s 6th Street.
(Travis Merrigan)
Public Works continues to delay long-
promised safety upgrades even as a repaving
project presents an opportunity to redesign
the dangerous street.
Bremerton has planned to convert 6th Street from a dangerous four-lane street into
a three-lane street with a bike lane, commonly known as a ‘road diet.’ The road diet
was explicitly and repeatedly recommended in numerous official City of Bremerton
studies or reports dating back to 2007. In 2024, 6th Street will undergo the third
and final phase of the $3.7 million resurfacing project — constituting a low-cost
chance to make the improvement. So why is the Wheeler administration planning to
complete a 6th Street repaving project next year without including the road diet
and bike lane?
The first known photograph (approx. 1910) of the boardwalk that
became 6th Street. One mile separated the cities of Bremerton and
Charleston. The two cities merged in 1927. (Kitsap History Museum)
6th Street: The Lowest Hanging Fruit
A bike lane on 6th Street has been studied extensively, and every single study – 10
in a row — have explicitly recommended a road diet on 6th. It’s not hard to see
why. A 2020 study noted that 6th Street has “crash rates which are approximately
2.5 times the Kitsap County average.” (p. 38). A 2020 study predicted the road diet
would result in a “29% reduction in intersection crashes.”
6th Street’s short 1.4-mile length runs near five schools, a park, Bremerton’s
largest homeless shelter, and dozens of homes and businesses. The 6th Street road
diet has ample support, including from both Downtown and Charleston Business
Associations, which are connected by 6th Street, and virtually nobody outside of the
Mayor’s office opposes the road diet, at least not publicly.
And yet, the City plans to complete the $3.6 million repaving project and not paint
the bike lanes. Baffled? Let’s learn more.
The Most Studied Bike Lane in Bremerton
As mentioned, the 6th Street road diet has been supported by no fewer than 10
official City of Bremerton documents since 2007. Bremerton City Council voted in
favor of documents supporting a 6th Street road diet by a combined tally of 31-4
and signed by three different Bremerton mayors.
Here’s a list:
•6th Street was first formalized in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation
Plan (NMTP), an addition to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. “In Bremerton,
several streets appear to have more width than is currently needed for
vehicles and this excess capacity could be stripped for non-motorized uses.
6th Street in West Bremerton currently provides four vehicle travel lanes, yet
traffic volumes are relatively low compared with nearby parallel routes such
as 11th Street and SR 304/Burwell Street.”
The first ever Bremerton map showing a future bike lane on 6th Street
was in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. (City of Bremerton)
•2007 Downtown Sub Area Plan, which passed unanimously, designated 6th
Street as a ‘Multimodal Street’ and argued, “Sharrows or dedicated bike
lanes should be added to all multimodal streets.” (p. 5-72).
•2012 Complete Streets Ordinance (BMC 11.10) stated, “Public Works and
Utilities Department will plan for, design, and construct all new transportation
improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities…”
•2016 Comprehensive Plan – 6th Street designated as a ‘Minor
Arterial.’ “These corridors could be the focus of targeted bicycle and
pedestrian improvements.” It stated, “Bremerton’s walking and bicycling
results indicate that many streets near Downtown Bremerton are especially
attractive for walking and biking uses. Vital streets that serve as a link to a
variety of uses and destinations scored highly, including…6th Street.”
•Bremerton’s Complete Street Ordinance (BMC 10.11) – passed in 2012,
updated in 2017, combined votes 12-2, signed by Mayors Lent & Wheeler.
“The complete streets program shall apply to all phases of City transportation
capital projects [including]…new transportation projects, reconstruction
projects, and retrofit projects…” More on this later.
•2018 Bremerton Complete Streets Map – 6th Street is labeled an official
‘Complete Street,’ thus requiring 6th Street bike facility to be ‘Completed’
during any City reconstruction or repaving project, (BMC 11.10). Thus, not
building the 6th Street road diet during the current repaving violates BMC
11.10.
•2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan – “6th Street Countermeasure:
Rechannelization … 29% reduction in intersection crashes.”
•2020 6th Street Road Diet Traffic Engineering Maps – Created for the City of
Bremerton by PH Consulting, completed as part of a grant application.
•2020 6th/11th Corridor Feasibility Study – This $100,000, 250-page ‘6th/
11th 2020 Corridor Study’ analyzed pre-pandemic traffic flows at every major
intersection in Central Bremerton’s 6th Street. The study concluded: “A road
diet is typically the preferred tactic for minor and collector arterials, while
access management is typically the preferred tactic for principal arterials.
Following this logic, 6th Street is a logical candidate for a road diet.” (p. 42)
As shown below, the study found Projected Car Level of Service comparing
‘Baseline’ (stays four lanes for cars) and ‘Rechannelization’ (4-to-3 road
diet). ‘A’ is no backups, ‘F’ is bad traffic. The 6th Street road diet has hardly
any effect at all on cars. Bikes and Pedestrian Level of Service improves
dramatically with the rechannelization.
•2023 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan – “Build Active Transportation
projects downtown and near NBK that will support/drive mode shift.” First
project recommendation: 6th Street Road Diet. JCTP Chair: Mayor Wheeler.
The Wheeler Administration Violates the
Complete Streets Ordinance for 6th Street
For 17 years, Bremerton City Council has been crystal clear about the ideal future
state of 6th Street. By passing the Complete Streets ordinance (BMC 11.10),
Council sought to require improved bike infrastructure on certain streets, especially,
“High need area/community of need,” defined as “(1) Any census tract in which the
median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median (2) An area
that has a high number of pedestrian and/or bicycle collisions.” (BMC
11.10.020.c.1-2).
6th Street passes through three low-income census tracts. 69.1% of
Bremerton Public School students are low income. OSPI (Image:
www.justicemap.org)
There’s no question that 6th Street fits the ordinance’s definitions. The three census
blocks that 6th Street passes through have a median income of 67% of State
average and the City’s 2020 Corridor Study noted “[c]rash rates for 6th Street… are
approximately 2.5 times the countywide average” (p. 8). Furthermore, 6th Street is
clearly delineated on the City’s Complete Streets Map.
Thus, the Wheeler administration has no plausible claim that 6th Street is exempt
from the requirement that, “The complete streets program shall apply to all phases
of City transportation capital projects… from the start of planning and design work
through construction.” And yet, when Phase I ($1.1 million total, $444,000 City
match) and Phase II ($1.6 million) of the 6th Street repaving project went to bid in
2020 and 2022, neither included multimodal improvements.
However, the Phase III grant application seemed set to include bike lanes. The
application included detailed engineering drawings of where bike lanes would be
painted, and included this phrase (p. 3) “An increase in bicycle trips is anticipated
due to the increase in safety and comfort achieved by the road diet and buffered
bicycle lanes. Road diets calm traffic, and reduce vehicle speeds. Buffered bicycle
lanes increase horizontal separation between bicyclists [sic] and cars. All users [sic]
groups who desire to walk or bike in the corridor will benefit.” But it was just a bait-
and-switch, and the administration now claims unprotected bike lanes are too
complicated for Phase III. More on that later.
The ‘Exemptions’ clause in the Bremerton Complete Streets Ordinance notes that
the 6th Street repaving project is not an obvious candidate for any of those
exemptions, and an exemption was never sought by Public Works. According to
BMC 11.10, the administration had the option to exempt itself from complete
streets requirements, but they ignored that process. To activate an exemption,
“[t]he Director of Public Works will notify the Public Works Committee of project
exceptions to the complete streets program set forth in subsection (b) of this
section prior to exception being granted…” Public Works Director Thomas Knuckey
has never presented an exemption to the Public Works committee for any of the
first two Phases of the 6th Street Repaving, in violation of BMC 11.10.
The complete streets ordinance has no enforcement mechanism, such as fines or an
appeals process, despite decisions like these failing to implement it endangering the
hundreds of kids who go to school near 6th Street. Such a toothless ordinances can
be ignored. In the absence of a means to legally enforce this code, a political
solution is required.
The $3 Million Per Mile Bike Lane
Clearly unsupportive of a near-term, inexpensive bike lane on 6th, the Wheeler
administration instead showed what a champagne budget might buy. In 2022, the
administration applied for (but did not win) a $737,000 Federal grant administered
via the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), The grant only covered engineering
($700,000) and right-of-way purchases ($150,000) to blow out intersections. The
eventual $4.1 million price tag would have included $3 million plus for construction
and would have required a nearly $600,000 match from city funds. Construction
wouldn’t have begun until 2028. A 1.4-mile bike lane that costs $4.1 million might
have been the most expensive paint-only bike lane in American history.
A portion of the street engineering drawings of the 6th Street bike lane
from the $4.1 million 2022 PSRC grant. The City did not win this grant.
(City of Bremerton)
The Wheeler administration’s preference for grand, expensive streets projects
forces two great costs upon Bremerton. The first cost is that large grants require
large matches from City funds, which compete with sidewalks and homeless
services. Secondly, the large grants reduce focus on practical solutions, like
connecting existing bike lanes into a comprehensive network. For instance, a two-
block gap separates Bremerton’s new 11th Street (Manette neighborhood) bike lane
from the Manette Bridge bike lane.
“It’s Too Hard” – The City’s Resistance to a
Safe 6th Street
The Wheeler administration claims they want a bike lane on 6th Street, just not
now and not inexpensively. The administration provides two rationales against
building the 6th Street road diet in 2024. First, they say, it’s impossibly difficult to
‘rechannelize’ the street on such short notice. Secondly, they will win a large grant
to complete the work at some point in the distant future.
The ‘it’s too hard’ argument was elucidated in an email Public Works Director
Knuckey sent to City Council on Oct 18, 2023. Several points are easily rebutted.
•It’s too hard #1: “There is a common misconception regarding [that]
believing the project would be low-cost and limited… to re-channelize 6th
Street,” Stuckey wrote. – Yes we do think that, because that’s what Public
Works repeatedly told citizens and Council. In multiple statements from 2020
to 2022, Public Works officials repeatedly stated that the road diet could be
easily achieved in Phase III (presumably to avoid having to complete it
section by section in Phases I and II.) One example from a July 2020 Public
Works committee meeting when Councilmember Lori Wheat said: “Did you
say that the third phase of the 6th street preservation project from Warren
Avenue to Naval… could be done concurrent with the third phase of the
project, the Naval to Warren portion?” Shane Weber, Public Works engineer
replied, “When you convert from a four to three lane facility you are not
moving the curb, you are just changing the channelization in-between, so it’s
a pretty easy forward compatibility project for us to implement.”
•It’s too hard #2: “We currently estimate the cost to design and construct
the re-channelization at $2.5 million” Lots of cities do road diets during
repaving, when machinery is already in place and they are painting lines
anyway. From a 2013 study of the costs of building bike infrastructure
projects in Portland, Oregon. “The City of Beaverton, Oregon, installed bike
lanes on a one-mile stretch (two miles of bike lanes total) of a residential,
collector road … The project cost $5,000 for design and engineering, $2,400
for labor, $6,000 for materials, and $250 for equipment, for a total of
$13,750, or $1.30 per foot.” A separate, 2018 Federal Highway
Administration study estimated the cost of a road diet to be $100,000 per
mile.
•Phase III funds can’t build bike lanes: “A further note that the grant
funding that is being used for this work is for “pavement preservation” only,
which generally includes the overlay and related work.” That’s simply untrue.
The official Phase III Notice to Consultants also included language placing the
bike lane firmly inside the anticipated ‘Scope of Work.’ “…The City may elect
to have the re-channelization completed as part of the project or have the
project designed to be forward compatible with a future project to re-
channelize to this lane configuration. The CONSULTANT shall consider this in
their approach to the project.“
•“[N]one of the evaluations or design has been completed yet”: In
fact, a tremendous amount of work has been done to plan for the 6th Street
road diet since 2007. One recent example is the: 2020 6th Street Road Diet
Traffic Engineering Maps that were created for the City of Bremerton by PH
Consulting, completed as part of a grant application. Another is the 2020
6th/11th Corridor Feasibility Study – This $100,000, 250-page ‘6th/11th
2020 Corridor Study’ analyzed pre-pandemic traffic flows at every major
intersection along Central Bremerton’s 6th Street and 11th Street. The study
concluded: “A road diet is typically the preferred tactic for minor and
collector arterials, while access management is typically the preferred tactic
for principal arterials. Following this logic, 6th Street is a logical candidate for
a road diet.”
•Too much traffic: Bremerton’s 6th Street has a 12,000 average daily traffic
(ADT) count, which opponents claim is too high for a simple Road Diet. That’s
simply not factual. The Federal Highway Administration compiled maximum
‘Average Daily Traffic’ ADT recommendations for road diets from local
transportation departments across the country. Seattle was up to 25,000
ADT, Chicago: 15,000-18,000 ADT, and Kentucky – up to 23,000 ADT.
Opponents of a road diet on 6th Street view the project as ‘anti car.’ While 4-to-3
road diets do have some negative effects on rush hour commuters, like lengthening
rush hour queues at stoplights, dozens of studies show road diets don’t significantly
increase travel time.
And road diets provide a plethora of benefits to cars, including reducing crashes
and improvements for cars entering the road diet street from driveways and side
streets. Road diets reduce both excessive speeding and erratic driving by impatient
drivers (like sudden weaving to avoid a turning car or bus stop). And road diets
make congested car/bike/pedestrian interactions less stressful for drivers by
making bikes and peds more predictable — bikes stay in the bike lane and kids
don’t dash across four lanes of traffic. The 6th Street road diet is not part of the so-
called ‘war on cars.’
The Politics of Bremerton’s 6th Street Road
Diet
The single greatest obstacle to 6th Street – and the larger multimodal network – is
Bremerton Public Works Director Tom Knuckey. Knuckey has a long history (26
years in Bremerton Public Works) of opposing bike projects in general and 6th
Street in particular. Presumably, he believes a 6th Street road diet will have
negative impacts on car traffic, which is a defensible position. But Knuckey doesn’t
make the traffic case, instead he argues that it’s simply impossible to build a paint-
only road diet in 2024, given various and sundry technical and funding
complications.
The Public Works director’s boss, Mayor Wheeler, has full authority to change his
mind and support the 6th Street road diet, and he just might. Mayor Wheeler
showed keen understanding of the importance of a multimodal (buses, bikes and
cars) transportation network with the results of the 2023 Joint Compatibility
Transportation Study (JCTP) a Department of Defense-funded, long-term
transportation study he chaired. JCTP recommended an enlightened set of
recommendations to accommodate sailors and citizens for Bremerton’s rapid
growth, including a 6th Street road diet. But the Mayor has been unable or
unwilling to direct his staff to accomplish the long term goals which he championed
in the JCTP. Maybe that will change.
A slide of the ‘Preferred Alternative’ for Bremerton’s transportation future from the Joint
Compatibility Transportation Plan, chaired by Bremerton Mayor Wheeler. Note that the
6th Street road diet is the first active transportation recommendation. (Parametrix
Engineering)
The other political force in Bremerton is the city council. At least four
councilmembers have expressed to advocates that they favor the 6th Street road
diet, as a majority of council always has. Council is considering a resolution to
reinforce the complete streets ordinance, with a focus on 6th Street. But the City
council can’t force the mayor to obey the law. The council’s strongest power is the
‘power of the purse,’ which they could use to attach a rider to the $350,000 City
match, requiring the bike lane and providing extra city funds to support engineering
studies. Maybe they will.
By 2040, Bremerton’s population is projected to increase by 50%, and employment
at the Central Bremerton Naval Shipyard will increase by 25%. Bremerton simply
cannot increase its car carrying capacity to meet that growth. It must focus on
transit and multimodal travel and create safe transportation options for residents
and commuters to coexist in a crowded city. 6th Street is the lowest hanging
multimodal fruit in a city that desperately needs future-oriented transportation
solutions.
Join others to support safe and active streets in Bremerton at the Rally for 6th
Street Road Diet, Wednesday, November 1, 5:30pm. Meet at the Norm Dicks
Government Building, Kitsap County Health.
Bremerton’s Bike Network Approaches Its Moment of Truth
Thank you Council members for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm Dianne Iverson, resident of Bremerton. I'm here today to show my support for a road
diet on 6th street.
The City of Bremerton's 2007 non-motorized plan describes in graphical detail a future
road diet on 6th street, otherwise known as a four to three lane conversion. A more
upbeat description is a road upgrade, since it is safer for pedestrians, cyclists and cars.
Many cities require that 4 lane roads be converted to three lanes plus bike lanes when
road resurfacing occurs, unless a specific request is made for an exception to that rule.
The decision to do this 6th street road upgrade was made 16 years ago when it became
part of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
Road diet conversions typically occur during road preservation projects because it saves
money if you combine the preservation project with the re-channelization. Once the road
is resurfaced, it doesn't cost any more to lay down new lane markings as replacing the old
ones. The less time you spend re-constructing a street, the less time businesses are
fighting to survive during the construction process. It's a win win for the city, small
businesses, and residents to do re-channelization during routine road preservation
projects.
A 4 to 3 lane conversion significantly reduces car, bike, and pedestrian accidents.
Communities usually see an increase in pedestrian and bicycle volumes. Vehicle
throughput generally stays about the same, but there is a reduction in top vehicle speeds
and crash rates.
That is why I support a 4 to 3 lane conversion.
The city already paid PB engineering in Tacoma to design the re-channelization with
bike lanes using just paint. Based on this design, the road diet can be painted now. The
option to do the road diet on 6th street is included in the phase 3 road preservation grant.
It’s eligible, within scope.
Save the taxpayers money, and mandate that a 6th street road diet be implemented as
promised during phase 3 of the road preservations project. The grant has a deadline of
2025, not 2024. There's enough time to do this right. It’s been 16 years in policy. It’s
time to follow policy and do what the community wants.
From: dianne iverson <diverson1950@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 8:52 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Dianne Iverson <diverson1950@gmail.com>
Subject: Copy of Public Recognition: Dianne Iverson Nov 1, 2023
1
Madrona-Shorewood Neighborhood
Concerns regarding Proposed Homeless Shelter adjacent to 100 Bay Vista Avenue
Presented to Bremerton City Council
Wednesday, November 1, 2023
Introductfon:
Good evening councilmembers. Although not on your agenda tonight, but certainly of great concern to
residents of Shorewood, Madrona Point and Bay Vista neighborhoods, is the notfon of the City determinedly
pushing to site a partfcular type of homeless she lter at 100 Bay Vista avenue; without adequate consideratfon
of the needs of our homeless populatfon or the safety of the neighborhoods in which we live.
Our biggest concern is that the Mayor appears to be dictatfng a solutfon without the meaningful input of
critfcal stakeholders, - - promotfng to this Council only the model he has already chosen and limitfng this
Council’s ability to consider this issue holistfcally. Also concerning, is that the Mayor may use informal or
formal declaratfon of an “emergency” to further circumvent the council’s decision making authority and allow
the City to force a shelter through without the voice of the people and the Council elected to represent us.
We want to be clear about two things:
1.) Building a structure on an unprepared site in NOT an “emergency” response. It would be ludicrous for
the City to (formally or informally) declare this an emergency - when it intends to take 6-8 months to
provide a response. The Mayor has already acknowledged that Salvatfon Army has opened its
Emergency Winter Shelter through April of 2024….so any plan by the City for a project that stems well
into the next calendar year needs to follow established public process.
2.) The solutfon Mayor is insistfng upon – a “Sprung Shelter” – is a model of the past, not the future.
Sprung shelters were initfally designed to meet the needs of able -bodied males - prospectors and
cowboys in 1887 - and the concept went on to be applied to military, sports and industrial populatfon
uses. But, without significant modificatfon, the simplistfc design of a sprung shelter have been proven
inadequate to meet the needs of our most marginalized, vulnerable homeless – females, children, high
medical needs, and LGBTQ– and can, in fact, be quite dangerous for them.
We are here tonight to present a number of questfons and concerns that must be meaningfully addressed
before the Council can properly determine what locatfon and what type of shelter will best serve the
homeless in our community. We ask you to engage with us on this issue - listen carefully to our questfons,
seek out the additfonal informatfon needed, demand the cooperatfon of the city, and hold robust and
thoughtiul discussion on these issues – for as long as it takes – before votfng on any proposal to begin
constructfon of a shelter in Bremerton.
2
1. Initfally, the Mayor stated that he would bring forth three possible shelter models for consideratfon –
campground, pallet, and congregate.
However, since last month he has spoken to City Council only about the “congregate housing” model,
referred to as a “Sprung Shelter.” Sprung shelters focus on bulk overnight warehousing of the
homeless and are the least compassionate, least safe shelter model.
Why has the Mayor chosen not to provide the council with objectfve informatfon (pros & cons, costs,
tfmelines) for each of the three models he initfally identffied?
And, why have you, City Council, not insisted that the City fully educate you on each alternatfve?
At your last study session, the City showed you an eight minute marketfng video in a blatant attempt to
“sell” you on the idea of supportfng a congregate “Sprung Shelter” model. The facilitfes successfully
portrayed in that video were located in industrial or core city areas….not at all like the urban
neighborhood that the City proposes be used for the Bremerton project. Does the City have similar slick
videos toutfng the campground and pallet model approaches? Shouldn’t these other models get equal
tfme with you?
Are you content that you will be asked to make a decision on one model without understanding any
other available optfons? Because we are not content with that.
This council has a duty to make a fully informed decision and not allow itself to be led by the Mayor ’s
politfcal desires. If the Mayor will not work collaboratfvely or provide you objectfve informatfon on each
model, what does the council intend to do to get yourselves that informatfon before the scheduled
December 6 vote?
2. The Mayor was quoted in The Kitsap Sun as saying: “The preferred alternatfve will be what provides the
opportunity for folks to be able to transitfon from being homeless…”.
However, It appears the Mayor has settled on the congregate (warehouse) model, which research
shows has the absolute LEAST chance of successfully transitfoning homeless people into stable housing.
And, he has championed his choice without providing any details at all to the public or the council.
Can City Council artfculate a full descriptfon of this proposed shelter and its intended purpose?
Can you walk us through what 24 hours, or perhaps 2 weeks, in the Mayor’s shelter looks like?
Is it an overnight only facility?
Or will it provide full-tfme, longer shelter?
What does temporary mean for the people who come here?
Is there a curfew?
Are pets allowed?
Can a person securely lock up their possessions? Can they stay all day?
Is there a laundry?
Is there medical assistance?
3
Are support services available?
Where will they park their cars? (yes, some of them do have cars).
How, exactly does a homeless person “transitfon” into stable housing , unless they have a safe place to
leave their valuables while they go on a job interview or access support services?
As they strive for self-sufficiency, how do they make this transitfon without a guaranteed 24 hour
shelter spot to return to after they work all day, or all evening, or all night?
The Mayor has stated that there will be some availability to stay in the shelter during the day, but does
that mean a person who finds employment working a night shift will be provided a quiet place to sleep
during the day?
Exactly what evidence has the Mayor provided to you to support that his proposed “congregate/
warehouse” shelter successfully addresses his stated goal and the concerns we have just mentfoned?
3. What evidence does the City Council have that ANYONE in the Bremerton community is in support of
the Mayor’s congregate/warehouse model, other than his own administratfve team?
Can you point to any public endorsement statements from our key social services and safety agencies
in support of this proposed site and model?
We know the Mayor has had conversatfons with many agencies and organizatfons, however, we see NO
evidence of public support for the proposal from any of these critfcal partners, including:
• Peninsula Health Services
• Kitsap Mental Health
• Kitsap Community Resources
• Bremerton Housing Authority
• St. Vincent de Paul
• Rescue Mission
• Kitsap Public Health Department
• CHI Franciscan Healthcare
• Bremerton Police Chief
• Bremerton Fire Marshall
• Bay Vista Residents Advisory Council
Where are their voices? What are they saying? You need to ask!
4. We are very concerned about the Mayor’s inconsistent representatfon about whether this is an
“Emergency” shelter, or a “temporary” shelter.
The Mayor first called this an “Emergency Shelter ” however he has also acknowledged that the
Salvatfon Army will be opening an Emergency Shelter for the winter beginning November 1st through
April 30th. As such, it appears the emergent need has been addressed.
4
When a City Council member was asked why the City Council has not been included in the decisions on
project site or type of structure, the Council member informed us, “Mayor Wheeler told us, when I
asked about this, that he had diverged from the usual procedure … because it was an emergency
situation.”
However, Mayor Wheeler has stated to members of our neighborhood that “I have not declared a state
of emergency. All noticing and public outreach will be in accordance with local and state laws .”
However, he has moved ahead with an agreement with Parametrix to do 30% design work for the site.
We understand he does not have to appear before Council untfl costs expended rise above $100
thousand, but when one of our neighbors noted that this kind of rolling expenditure is not at all usual
policy, the Mayor indicated that the move was necessary “to resolve an emergency situation. “
The narratfve surrounding this project has contradicted itself:
• Is the term “emergency” just being thrown out informally as hyperbole to create cover for
making decisions and spending public funds without following mandated processes?
• If an “emergency” truly exists, how can you approve a response that will take 6-8 months to
manifest?
• If the structure itself is temporary, what is the proposed lifespan of the project?
• If the project is temporary, what is the long term plan for providing transitfonal shelter for our
unhoused neighbors?
• If we spend resources on a “band-aid” proposal, how will that impact having resources to
address the problem in the long term?
Given the amount of grading required for this site and the estfmated constructfon costs of $1.6 – 4
million dollars, this is a MAJOR project.
We as a community, and you Council Members as the voice of the tax payers, must demand that
this project go through the full regulatory process – including true community engagement; more in
depth studies into shelter types; assessment of all truly viable locatfons; and support needs services
availability.
5. Who will staff and maintain this facility?
We have heard that the City intends to ask Salvatfon Arny to staff and run the facility. We have concerns
about that, due to the fact that some of our currently unhoused populatfon have already fully rejected
organizatfons with religious tfes; or been denied services by that establishment. And, it is our
understanding that Salvatfon Army cannot accept anyone with medical issues ( ie; incontfnence) or
other high medical needs.
In additfon, the drop-in, congregate model has no apparent ability to screen for violent criminal history
prior to admittance. What is the City’s back-up plan if Salvatfon Army cannot/will not provide the
necessary staffing?
Who will be providing security for this facility? Additfonally, which entfty will provide maintenance and
repairs in this facility?
If it’s the City, is this an efficient use of existfng staff, or will the City be asking for even more employees
to cover the work?
5
Also, we want to note that citfes across the country that are better resourced and more fully staffed
than Bremerton, have failed miserably in their attempts to direct manage homeless shelters.
How has the Mayor proven to you that his staff has the expertfse, experience and tfme to manage this
shelter directly, without it resultfng in the same failure that other citfes have experienced?
6. Why is the City not reaching out to local businesses near their proposed site to let them know what is
happening?
Is the plan just to get this passed through City Council and then let businesses fend for themselves , or
pack up and leave our area?
Our business neighbors on Kitsap Way have dealt with the increased challenges of homelessness for
several years now. Many of our fast-food/coffee shops now limit access to their lobby, or close them
entfrely. This is because of the demand for toilet facilitfes and a place to sit/sleep out of the elements.
If the congregate/warehouse model being pushed by the City does not provide adequate indoor shelter
around the clock, it will simply be dumping more homeless to fend for themselves all day on Kitsap
Way.
This will likely lead to more crime, more sanitatfon issues, more unsafe sidewalks and streets…. And
more businesses that shutter and leave our neighborhood.
While we may survive just fine without these small businesses, we are also concerned with our few
essentfal service providers. We have only one grocery store (Winco) and two essentfal pharmacies (Rite
Aid & Walgreens) in our neighborhood. They each suffer the impact of the homelessness and mental
health crises on an ongoing basis.
We are concerned that we are already approaching the tfpping point for these businesses to decide to
move out of our immediate community.
How has the City indicated they will support these businesses to ensure they are able to contfnue to
provide essentfal goods and services in our neighborhood?
7. The City’s proposed shelter site places at risk the vulnerable populatfons which live directly across the
street in the Bay Vista Community.
Bay Vista was redeveloped by Bremerton Housing Authority to provide Sectfon 8 public housing, as
well as low-income (public voucher supported) housing for vulnerable populatfons - including women
escaping domestfc violence, single parents with young children, elderly requiring assisted living, and
persons with physical, mental, and/or emotfonal disabilitfes.
These are people who have already suffered immense challenges in life and who rely on the City and
Bremerton Housing Authority to ensure they reside in a safe, healthy and stable environment.
6
To import and house across the street from them an even more disadvantaged, vulnerable and
unstable populatfon seems unwise at best and perhaps even cruel. If the shelter is not well thought
out and well implemented, the vulnerable residents of Bay Vista will be the victfms of the City of
Bremerton’s collectfve leadership failure.
Residents in public housing do not have the optfon to move.
People receiving housing vouchers may be able to move but, in reality, such moves are unattainable,
given the lack of available rentals in our city and the costs of security deposits and moving household
goods.
So these folks are stuck with your decisions, for better or for worse.
Also, of notable concern, is the unsecured children’s playground located directly across from the
proposed shelter site.
Typical in a low-income area, this playground is the primary recreatfon/physical actfvity outlet available
to the children of Bay Vista. Some of these children play unsupervised, as their parent(s) work or
attend to other requirements of daily living.
Congregate/warehouse model shelters typically do not have the ability to screen for criminal history,
and even if the shelter turns away a known violent offender or pedophile, it will already have drawn
that harm to the immediate environment.
How does the Council intend to protect these vulnerable children from the increased number of adult
strangers who will have unfettered access to this playground?
8. Both our housed and unhoused neighbors need the City Council to educate itself on other shelter
models.
One that stands out to us, is Pallet Shelters.
Our own research has shown us that Pallet shelters are a much safer optfon for women, children,
persons who identffy differently than they may “present,” and those with disabilitfes, or medical needs.
Pallet shelters can be fenced from intrusion, require applicatfons, screen for violent criminal history,
and provide successful transitfon into long term stable housing by providing needed support services.
Also, Bremerton has several local social service agencies building an impressive track record for working
collaboratfvely to create innovatfve, successful housing optfons for difficult to serve populatfons – for
example: Pendleton Place; Mills Crossing, Evergreen Bright Start.
7
Why is the City refusing to engage meaningfully with these local agencies or accept their wisdom
about which optfon truly will best serve the needs of Bremerton?
Kitsap Community Resources; Kitsap Mental Health; Bremerton Housing Authority; Peninsula Health
Services; Rescue Mission… they have already created very successful housing optfons in Bremerton,
and the wisdom and experience of these agencies is readily available for the asking.
While we understand the Mayor has talked TO these agencies, we see no evidence that he has yet
been willing to accept their feedback or alter his course.
We encourage you, City Council, to invite these agencies to educate your further, before you are
pressured into taking an uniformed vote.
Closing:
The homeless issue in our city is growing more desperate as tfme goes by. We understand that our city leaders
are past due in tfmely addressing the plight of our unsheltered neighbors. We also absolutely insist that you
take actfon only after engaging in a transparent, collaboratfve, informed process. The Mayor ’s proposal, while
well intended, is inadequate to meet the needs of our community. The model he has chosen has little chance
of successfully meetfng his stated goals, or the broader goals of our community in effectfvely addressing the
needs of our homeless. The Mayor and this Council must choose the optfon that best ensures that our
unhoused residents using a transitfonal housing facility will be safe and receive the support they need to
successfully move on to more stable housing. The Mayor and the Council must also ensure the safety and well
-being of the surrounding residentfal neighborhood(s) in which any transitfonal housing project is located. You,
City Council, must stay in control of this process and ensure that adequate guardrails are put in place to
protect all of us. It is not too late for this Council to do its job properly. Our unhoused and housed residents
are relying on you to do so.
Published for
November 1
Council Meeting
Item 8 – Council Reports