HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2025 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2025
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Starting at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603
Council Conference Room 603 will be open to the public to attend the Study Session in-person, but there will
be no opportunities for input. However, public questions or comments may be submitted at any time to
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us. Please remember that the content of the Agenda Bill items is subject to
change; and no action at the Study Session is anticipated. If approved by the Council, these items will be
placed on the January 15, 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda, or as indicated…
Members of the public may click the link below to join the webinar:
https://bremertonwa-gov.zoom.us/j/8738266756?pwd=ZWlMVnVYbFBHYjY5U1RJUmFreDFXUT09
Or One tap mobile:
US: +12532050468,,87318266756#,,,,*857582# or +12532158782,,87318266756#,,,,*857582#
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 +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 873 1826 6756; Passcode: 857582
A. INFORMATION ONLY PRESENTATIONS
1. 6th Street Active Transportation Improvement Project Update – Nick Ataie, Engineering Project
Manager
B. AGENDA BILL BRIEFINGS
1. Confirm Appointment of Tia Hudson to the Arts Commission
2. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with Kitsap County for Housing Incarcerated Individuals
3. Resolution to approve provision of Wastewater Utility Services to 1910 SW Cook Road
4. Resolution to approve provision of Wastewater Utility Services to 13 properties on Sherman
Heights Road
5. Alternative Transportation Program Grant Agreement with the WA State Transportation
Improvement Board for the Warren Avenue Sidewalk Gap Project
6. Supplemental Agreement No. 4 with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Naval Ave: 1st Street to 15th
Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements Project
7. Public Work Agreement for Purchase of Playground Equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc.
for Haddon Park
C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS - Each item is approx. 5-minutes, including Q&A
1. Briefing on Ordinance to Modify Rules for Safe Off-Street Parking – Jane Rebelowski
2. Public Works Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 12/17/24) – ’24 Chair Jane Rebelowski
3. Regional and Other Committee/Board Briefings
4. Other General Council Business (As necessary, and as time allows…)
D. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations
should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Form Updated 4.19.2024
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 6th Street Active Transportation
Improvement Project Update
Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Presenter: Nick Ataie
Phone: (360) 473-2306
SUMMARY: The 6th Street Active Transportation Improvement Project includes multimodal
improvements to provide continuous on-street bike lanes and improve safety for all road users
through a roadway re-channelization. HDR Engineering, Inc. has supported staff in development of
corridor design alternatives and an in-person open house meeting was held on November 12, 2024
with an online survey and comment period provided following the meeting. This informational
presentation will include a review of the project scope and goals, a summary of alternatives currently
developed, a summary and discussion of public input received, and discussion on next steps related
to identification of a preferred corridor design alternative to advance to the detailed design phase.
HANDOUTS:
1. Public Comment Summary (From November 2024 Open House Materials Presented)
A1
1
6th Street Active Transportation Improvements Project
Preliminary Alternative Design Survey Report
December 17, 2024
2
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
Project Outreach Goals ........................................................................................................ 3
Timeline.............................................................................................................................. 3
Engagement results ............................................................................................................. 4
In-person open house and sticky note comments summary ................................................. 4
Online survey portal and second community survey summary .............................................. 5
Key themes ......................................................................................................................... 7
Preferred Project Design Alternatives ..................................................................................... 8
Participant demographics..................................................................................................... 8
Appendix A: In-Person Open House: Roll Plot Sticky Notes Comments ..................................... 9
Appendix B: Survey results breakdown by questions ............................................................. 14
3
Introduction
The 6th Street Active Transportation Improvements Project aims to re-channelize 6th Street into a
connected multimodal corridor through a public engagement process to collect community
support for the flnal design selected by the City of Bremerton. From August to December 2024, the
project team conducted in-person and online engagement activities during the design phase. These
methods included a virtual meeting, an online survey portal, two online surveys, an in-person open
house, updates to the project webpage, di splay boards, an informational fiyer, a Frequently Asked
Questions sheet, project roll plots, yard signs, a mailer, and social media posts.
Project Outreach Goals
The City of Bremerton has deflned the following project goals for the 6th Street Active
Transportation Improvement project:
The overall goal for this project:
• To develop a multimodal corridor for 6th Street to improve mobility, access, and safety for
all users and support future development.
As the project design is developed, communications and engagement goals include:
• Inform the community and key constituency groups to build an understanding of the
project's purpose, need, and goals and the decision points when their input will be
informative.
• Collect robust and representative feedback that informs the project team of community
priorities for the corridor and shapes the study's outcomes.
• Promote an inclusive and accessible outreach process and elevate voices not included in
planning projects historically.
• Ensure community members know when and how they can participate in the process. Make
providing feedback on the project accessible.
Timeline
Dates Activity
August – December 2024 Webpage updates
Stakeholder meetings
August 2024 Online survey portal
September 2024 Online meeting
• Mailer to the project area
• Yard signs placed along the project area
September – October 2024 Project priorities survey
September – November 2024 Promotional social media posts
• Used to promote project meetings and surveys
November 2024 In-person open house
• Display boards
• Informational fiyer
• Frequently Asked Questions sheet
4
• Alternative design roll plot
• Current conditions roll plot
November – December 2024 Alternative design survey
Engagement results
In-person open house and sticky note comments summary
On November 12, the project team
hosted an in-person open house at the
Norm Dicks Government Center in
Bremerton, WA. The event had over 60
individuals, including residents, city
council members, and reporters.
Project team members welcomed
attendees, discussed the project,
answered questions, and explained
the materials.
The open house featured project
details on an informational fiyer,
display boards, roll plots showing the
current conditions and alternative
project designs, and a frequently
asked questions sheet. Attendees
were encouraged to write comments
on sticky notes, identifying areas of
concern along the 6th Street corridor,
preferred alternatives, and any other feedback. Attendees then placed these sticky notes on the
project materials to provide feedback for the project team to review and incorporate into the
project.
The project team collected 91 sticky notes from the alternative design roll plot, current conditions
roll plot, and informational display boards. Across all materials, the comments refiected support
for protected bike lanes. Many residents expressed concerns regarding traffic speeds and
pedestrian and bicycle safety. On the alternative design roll plots, multiple sticky notes suggested
eliminating right turns on red lights and blocking entrances from 6th Street onto Hewitt Avenue and
Bremerton residents at the Norm Dicks Government Center In-
Person Open House on Nov. 12, 2024
5
other side streets. Attendees also supported the
intersection design at Callow Avenue and 6th Street.
Comments on the current conditions roll plot highlighted
several issues, including narrow sidewalks, utility poles
obstructing sidewalk space, and illegal right turns.
Additionally, multiple sticky notes on the display boar ds
raised concerns about which modes of transportation are
prioritized in the project. For a complete list of the sticky
notes shared, see Appendix B.
Overall, the project team considered the sticky note
feedback method to be highly successful in gathering input
on the project.
Online survey portal and second community survey summary
The project team published an online portal as a platform for project information and two online
surveys. The flrst survey assessed community priorities, concerns, and support for the project. A
summary report of the project priorities survey is available on the project webpage.
Sticky note comments on the alternative
design roll plot from the in-person open
house on Nov. 12, 2024
6
Bremerton 6th Street Project Online Survey Portal
Following this, the project team conducted a second survey to gather input on preferred alternative
designs for the 6th Street corridor presented during the open house. This survey collected 49
responses between Tuesday, November 12, and Friday, December 6. Notable spikes in survey
participation occurred on November 14 and 26, attributed to promotional outreach efforts,
including social media posts and emails. All the survey questions were optional. Response rates
varied across questions, but on average, each question received answers from 39 out of the 49
respondents.
Many of the quantitative results of the alternative design survey were inconclusive. When
respondents rated their support for the proposed alternatives to re-channelize 6th Street, 39%
indicated they were supportive or very supportive, while 41% were unsupportive or very
unsupportive. Questions 9 and 11 also showed nearly evenly divided res ponses, with respondents
preferring wider center turn lanes and wider bike lanes on two-way left turn cross sections. For
Question 11, 37% preferred precast curb -protected bike lanes, whereas 35% chose not to support
any of the outlined bike lane alternatives. This result suggests that the proposed options for
protected bike lanes may not align with respondent preferences.
Questions 4 through 6 inquired about preferred alternatives for speciflc streets. At Olympic Ave,
nearly half of the respondents favored Alternative C, which includes an eastbound left turn and a
paved concrete center median. The results noted a similar trend at Hewitt Ave, where roughly half
of the respondents preferred Alternative B. Preferences for Naval Ave were much more divided, with
Alternatives A and B receiving approximately equal support. It is important to note that about 20%
of respondents did not answer these questions.
7
Questions 12 through 14 collected qualitative data on whether the proposed alternatives address
safety concerns for different modes of transportation. These results were also inconclusive, with
some respondents agreeing that the alternatives would reduce safety concerns while others
expressed increased concerns. Respondents to Question 12 believed the alternatives would slow
down traffic, but opinions varied on whether this would lead to more or fewer vehicular accidents.
Question 16 also collected qualitative data, asking what else the project team should know or
consider as it moves through the design process. Responses highlighted concerns about the
project causing traffic increases, especially during peak commuting hours. Many respondents felt
the project would increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists, with continued advocacy for
concrete-protected bike lanes.
A detailed breakdown of all survey results can be found in Appendix B.
Key themes
The project team recognized several key themes from both online and in-person engagement
methods:
• Concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety
o Bremerton residents have expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists along the project corridor. They cite issues such as speeding vehicles,
narrow sidewalks, and a lack of safe pedestrian crossings. Cyclists share similar
concerns, pointing to the absence of dedicated bike lanes and the high speeds of
passing vehicles as signiflcant safety risks.
• Support for bike lanes protected by concrete barriers
o Residents of Bremerton residents strongly advocate for implementing concrete
barriers between bike lanes and roadway traffic. This support has been evident
across various engagement methods, including feedback from attendees at in-
person open houses, online surveys, and sticky note comments.
• Concerns about high vehicle speeds
o There has been consistent feedback from Bremerton residents regarding high
vehicle speeds throughout the project engagement process. Many residents identify
speeding as a primary deterrent to biking, walking, and rolling along 6th Street,
contributing to signiflcant safety concerns.
• Concerns that traffic may be redirected to side streets
o Several residents have voiced concerns that the project's traffic control measures
could increase traffic on side streets, particularly in residential neighborhoods.
• Concerns over transportation prioritization
o Some residents worry that the project will prioritize vehicle traffic at the expense of
other forms of transportation, such as biking and walking. Conversely, others are
concerned that the project will not sufficiently address the high vehicle traffic levels
along the corridor.
8
• Divided support for the project and its alternatives
o The alternative design survey indicated a decrease in overall project support
compared to the initial project priorities survey. Additionally, several alternative
design options received mixed feedback, with only slim margins separating the
results.
Preferred Project Design Alternatives
The following section summarizes the preferred design alternatives based on the results of the
second online survey.
• Question 3: Answer A - Respondents prefer none of the typical intersection pavement
marking alternatives.
• Question 4: Answer C - Respondents prefer an Eastbound left turn and a paved concrete
center median at Olympic Ave.
• Question 5: Answer B - Respondents prefer the project to use existing road space at Naval
Ave.
• Question 6: Answer B - Respondents prefer a paved concrete center median at Hewitt Ave.
• Question 7: Answer B - Between Park Ave and Paciflc Ave, respondents prefer a two-way left
turn lane.
• Question 8: Answer B - Respondents prefer buffered bike lanes between Paciflc Ave and
Washington Ave.
• Question 9: Answer A and Answer B - Respondents are split equally between preferring a
wider center turn lane and a wider bike lane as a two -way left turn cross-section alternative.
• Question 10: Answer A - Respondents prefer a 4" wide bike edge line.
• Question 11: Answer A - Respondents prefer a precast curb -protected bike lane between
11th St and Rainier Ave.
Participant demographics
The project team collected optional demographic data from participants for both online surveys.
Demographics for the project priorities survey can be found in the summary report. Over 60% of
respondents to the alternative design survey reported that driving was their primary mode of
transportation, while less than 30% indicated that they bike, walk, roll, or use public transportation.
Among those who disclosed their income in the survey, approximately 69% reported earning
$100,000 or more. Additionally, the survey revealed that of those who shared their racial identity,
85% identifled as white.
Appendix B contains more demographic data. The project team also noted that a signiflcant
number of attendees at the in-person open house were members of the Bremerton bicyclist
community.
9
Appendix A: In-Person Open House: Roll Plot Sticky Notes Comments
Alternative Roll Plot
Sticky Note Location
Can we place a light button to trigger pedestrians walking on
the NW side of High? At the intersection of High Ave and 6th St
AU K.T. Stops should be after intersections! At the intersection of High Ave and 6th St
Maintenance: Give a portion of shoulders to civilians to
maintain (i.e. leaves, dirt, etc.) I.e. Ownership - many will
participate
Near "Two-Way Left Turn Lane and Bike Lane
Edge Line Alternatives"
Slower = better. Narrow lane for cars, wide for bikes Near "Two-Way Left Turn Lane and Bike Lane
Edge Line Alternatives"
Speed limit whole length "25 mph" Near "Two-Way Left Turn Lane and Bike Lane
Edge Line Alternatives"
Bike caution sign: cars entering and exiting business (not
looking at the bike, looking at the cars) Near the intersection of Veneta Ave and 6th St
Cyclists being merged into same lane as bus route along 6th
and Chester (e.g.) is super sketch. I'd never want to bring my
9 y.o. daughter on that ride
At the intersection of Chester Ave and 6th St
Block off At the north side of the intersection of Chest Ave
and 6th St
Better than put bikes against the curb Next to Warren Ave's "Design Outcomes"
section
Nice Arrow pointing toward Alternative D of "Bike
Lane Edge Line Alternatives"
Like Alki in Seattle, erect traffic barriers (5' x 6" wide x 4" tall)
along the path the whole way
Near "Two-Way Left Turn Lane and Bike Lane
Edge Alternatives"
For many of the side streets- non corridor- block the off at
6th. Fewer bike-car confiicts. Makes place for kids to play in
the dead-end as well!
Next to the intersection of Broadway Ave and
6th St.
Provide separation bollard and c curb at intersection
(Washington Ave. protected lane only 6 ft. wide --> should
be able to provide separation here
Arrow pointing to the Northwest side of the
intersection at Warren Ave and 6th St
Protection Arrow pointing at the north bike lane between
Broadway Ave and Warren Ave along 6th St
Consider "protected intersection" Arrow pointing to the intersection of Warren Ave
and 6th St
Leads to accidents Arrow pointing to the east bike lane on the
intersection of Warren Ave and 6th St
Eliminate all right turns on red Arrow pointing to the intersection of Warren Ave
and 6th St
No turn on red ban for Bremerton Near the intersection of Warren Ave and 6th St
10
Nactu no longer supports RT pockets. Instead they support
protected bike lanes On the white margins
Cyclists and cycle lane need to be protected from drivers
turning right with bollards/raised median, etc.
At the intersection of Park Ave to "Washington
Ave Alternative A"
Where are the infrastructure improvements that will prevent
speeding? The project materials do not explicitly identify
how speeds will be reduced
Next to Washington Ave
I like this alternative due to the less confiict with parking
spots and bikes
Next to Highland Ave on the "Washington Ave to
Park Ave Alternative B"
Possibly block off 6th here so only bikes and peds can get
through to Washington At the intersection of Washington Ave and 6th St
It's better to protect the bike lane behind the parked cars.
Other cities do this.
Arrow pointing at the south side of the
Washington Ave and 6th St intersection
Remove parking stalls at old Eagles club On the south side of 6th St between Highland
Ave and Washington Ave
Can this be protected bike lane? Arrow pointing at the north bike lane between
Paciflc Ave and Pleasant Ave along 6th St.
All bike lanes need physical protection where possible At the bike lane between Paciflc Ave and
Pleasant Ave
Bike lane and car parking should have a physical buffer,
otherwise cars will end up encroaching bike lanes
Arrow pointing at the bike lane between
Highland Ave and Pleasant Ave
We need protected bike lanes! Without protection, cars
speed by cyclists very close and fast, and cars use the bike
lane as a stopping/parking lane
Between Paciflc Ave and Pleasant Ave
Redesign for protected bike lanes - entire roadway Arrow pointing at the bike lane between
Highland Ave and Pleasant Ave
Yes please! Physical separation from cars Next to the "Buffers Shaded in Red" description
box
Consistent green pain? Next to the "Signal Modiflcations May Include"
description box
These should be protected lanes with precast curb (Alt A or
Alt C) You should also consider planters
Arrow pointing at the red bike lanes along Kitsap
Way, before Wycoff Ave
Bike lanes need to continue Next to the intersection of Wycoff Ave and
Kitsap Way
Amazing intersection! More of this 6th and Callow! Arrow pointing toward the intersection of Callow
Ave and 6th St
6th and Callow is great Next to the Wells Fargo between Callow Ave and
Montgomery Ave
Protected lanes Arrow pointing to red protected lanes along 6th
St between Callow Ave and Montgomery Ave
Protected bike lane! Yay! Why stop it here? Near the intersection of Montgomery Ave and
6th St, next to the Gateway Park and Ride
11
Please consider mini-jersey barriers Seattle is installing Next to Alternative A Pre-Cast Curb picture
Block off - allow bikes/peds to get through Arrow pointing toward the intersection of Rainier
Ave and 6th St
Raised pedestrian island preferred On "Olympic Ave - Alternative B"
This with protected bike lanes would be awesome On "Olympic Ave - Alternative C"
:D On "Olympic Ave - Alternative C"
Bike box to protect bikes in right turn lane? At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative B"
Turn pockets are dangerous for anyone At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
With reduced road lane for bikes, this turn lane may be
needed for feeding into NBK-Bremerton lots of AM peak
traffic
At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Turn pocket! No! At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Naval/11th is so unsafe for pedestrians & bikers. Opt. A is
adding to protective measures as downtown grows
At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Preferred w/o turn pocket - Resident at 7th and Naval At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative B"
Flip right turn and bike lane locations At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Very high stress for cyclists At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Turn pockets and turn lanes are not needed! Slow the cars,
give pedestrians more space!
At the intersection of Naval Ave and 6th St on
"Naval Ave - Alternative A"
Can this be a raised median with trees? Look for any
opportunities possible for urban greening
Arrow pointing to the median between Hewitt
Ave and Roosevelt Ave near "Hewitt Ave -
Alternative A"
Block off Hewitt Arrow pointing to the south end of Hewitt Ave on
"Hewitt Ave - Alternative A"
Block off Hewitt Arrow pointing to the north end of Hewitt Ave on
"Hewitt Ave - Alternative A"
Block off Arrow pointing to the north end of Pennsylvania
Ave
Build the safety in NW w/ entrances. I love the fiow of "B"
Hewitt
At the intersection of Hewitt Ave and 6th St on
"Hewitt Ave - Alternative B"
Close off one side of intersections Near intersection of Pennsylvania Ave and 6th St
Total Sticky Notes: 58
12
Current Conditions Roll Plot
Sticky Note Location
Not very pleasant if there aren't safe sidewalks At the intersection of Pleasant Ave and 6th St
How to slow traffic for safety for all: Protected bike lanes,
not wider, faster highways. More frequent opportunities for
cyclists and pedestrians to be seen and offer cars/drivers
an alternative, healthier modus of transportation. Near photo 31
It's incredibly difficult to take a left on a bike out of here to
go downtown At the intersection of Broadway Ave and 6th St
Very fast traffic between Naval and Warren. Speed cameras
would be very helpful! Along 6th St between photo 29 and 28
Narrow sidewalk the whole way. 2 pedestrians can't walk
side by side and difficult for pedestrians to pass each other Along 6th St between photo 29 and 28
This sidewalk is almost impossible to walk on. It is way too
narrow Along 6th St between photo 24 and 23
6th and High: This corner gets a ton of use! Needs plenty of
room for peds and bikes AND slower car speeds rounding
corner
At the corner of 6th St and High Ave, pointing
toward the bus station
My friend lives on this street and nearly gets hit by a car
every time she passes! Pointing north up High Ave
Cars really pick up speed here and around High Near photo 21
Here the pole is right in the middle of the sidewalk On photo 20 - Looking West
If this street had bike lanes then cars would go so much
slower!! Near photo 15
I live on this street way up. There aren't any sidewalks there.
I want to be able to ride and bike safely! (and walk my dog)
:) :) Along Naval Ave
The school that I go to has way too many fast drivers, and
sometimes we walk. Nearly get hit by a car every time Along Naval Ave
Have you done a traffic study to determine expected
backups during PSNS start and end times? Along Naval Ave
Side walks are too narrow. It is impossible to bike on them!
And the street has no bike lanes so you can't bike on the
street Along Naval Ave
So frustrating when utility poles and cables narrow the
walkway. Includes plants and garbage bins too. To the left of photo 18 - Looking East
Sidewalks are not very protective (+1) Between photo 13 and 14
Need crossing at Olympic. Distance between Montgomery
and Naval crosswalks encourages risky crossings for bikes
and peds. Near photo 13
13
Cars turn right illegally on red. It's dangerous for bikes and
cars! On photo 09 - Looking East
People make illegal right turns onto 6th and Furniture World
is creating a blind spot
At the intersection of N. Montgomery Ave and
6th St, heading onto 6th St between Furniture
World NW and the Gateway Park and Ride
Very stressful uphill blind corner for bikes. Cars speed
frequently here. Near photo 04, 05
The bike lane going downhill disappears here, leading to
some dangerous merging (+3 in agreement) Near photo 04, 05
The CBD would like to make sure the gap between 01, and
02, 03 is part of the plan Near photo 02, 03
Total Sticky Notes: 23
Informational Display Boards
Sticky Note Location
Need protected bike lanes to achieve this
Next to "Improve traffic fiow consistency"
under "Project Goals"
Safety should be #1, but the presented alternatives put
traffic fiow flrst Next to "Project Goals"
Speciflcally safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The current
plan is motorist safety as deflnition of safety
Next to "Project Goals" and under previous
sticky note
Add to list of "Potential Safety Elements": Road design that
slows vehicles to speed limit Next to "Potential Safety Elements"
Less traffic signals, more traffic calming infrastructure that
naturally slows traffic Next to "Potential Safety Elements"
Add safe bike lanes (+1) Next to "Potential Safety Elements"
These comments on speeding are NOT captured in the
project's list of "potential safety elements."
Next to "What we heard from the community on
survey #1"
We can and should aim for Level 1! If we can't move as
many cars, that's good! Next to "Level of Traffic Stress"
Driving constant high speeds and never slowing down to
connect to place is a stressor for drivers. Stressed drivers
are dangerous drivers. Fast drivers = Stressed drivers Next to "Level of Traffic Stress"
Add engineer road features that slow the traffic to the speed
limit Next to "Potential Safety Elements"
Total Sticky Notes: 10
14
Appendix B: Survey results breakdown by questions
Question 1: How do you usually travel along the 6th Street corridor?
45/49 responses
• 64% report driving
• 13% report biking or rolling
• 10% report walking
• 5% report using public transit
• 2% do not travel through the corridor
• 7% did not answer
Question 2: The project is anticipated to have limited construction funding. Which of the
following elements should be prioritized (select up to 3)?
64%
13%
10%
5%2%7%
1. How do you usually travel along the 6th Street
corridor?
Driving
Biking or Rolling
Walking
Public transit
N/A, I don't travel
through the corridor
15
40/49 responses
• 16% of votes for bike lane physical protection (at recommended locations)
• 26% of votes for pedestrian rectangular rapid fiashing beacon (RRFB) crossings
• 14% of votes for pedestrian paved center medians (at locations shown)
• 19% of votes for separate right-turn lane inclusion for vehicles (at locations shown)
• 10% of votes for bike lane green pavement markings
• 6% of votes for bike lane enhanced edge markings
• 10% did not answer
16
Question 3: Which typical intersection pavement marking alternatives do you prefer?
44/49 responses
• 27% answered A – None
• 22% answered B – Pedestrian crossing
• 2% answered C – Bike crossing
• 14% answered D – Green bike approach and departure markings
• 24% answered E – All of the above
• 10% did not answer
27%
22%
2%
14%
24%
10%
3. Which typical intersection pavement marking alternatives do you
prefer?
A - None
B - Pedestrian crossing
C - Bike crossing
D - Green bike approach
& departure markings
E - All of the above
N/A, No answer
17
Question 4: At Olympic Ave, what alternatives do you prefer?
39/49 responses
• 18% answered A – Westbound left turn, precast curb & striping only
• 14% answered B – Westbound left turn, paved concrete center median
• 47% answered C – Eastbound left turn, paved concrete center median
• 20% did not answer
Question 5: At Naval Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
18%
14%
47%
20%
4. At Olympic Ave, what alternatives do you prefer?
A - Westbound left
turn, precast curb &
striping only
B - Westbound left
turn, paved concrete
center median
C - Eastbound left turn,
paved concrete center
median
N/A, No answer
37%
41%
22%
5. At Naval Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
A - Right-of-way
acquisition and curb
widening
B - Use existing road
space
N/A, No answer
18
38/49 responses
• 37% answered A – Right-of-way acquisition and curb widening
• 41% answered B – Use existing road space
• 22% did not answer
Question 6: At Hewitt Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
39/49 responses
• 33% answered A – Precast curb & striping only
• 47% answered B – Paved concrete center median
• 20% did not answer
33%
47%
20%
6. At Hewitt Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
A - Precast curb &
striping only
B - Paved concrete
center median
N/A, No answer
19
Question 7: Between Park Ave and Pacific Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
41/49 responses
• 33% answered A – Partial parking retention
• 51% answered B – Two-way left turn lane
• 16% did not answer
Question 8: Between Pacific Ave and Washington Ave, what alternative do you prefer?
41/49 responses
33%
51%
16%
7. Between Park Ave and Pacific Ave, what alternative do you
prefer?
A - Partial parking
retention
B - Two-way left turn
lane
N/A, No answer
41%
43%
16%
8. Between Pacific Ave and Washington Ave, what alternative do you
prefer?
A - Partial parking
retention
B - Buffered bike lanes
N/A, No answer
20
• 41% answered A – Partial parking retention
• 43% answered B – Buffered bike lanes
• 16% did not answer
Question 9: Which typical two -way left turn cross section alternative do you prefer?
42/49 responses
• 43% answered A – Wider center turn lane
• 43% answered B – Wider bike lane
• 14% did not answer
43%
43%
14%
9. Which typical two-way left turn cross section alternative do you
prefer?
A - Wider center turn
lane
B - Wider bike lane
N/A, No answer
21
Question 10: Which bike lane edge line alternatives do you prefer?
41/49 responses
• 29% answered A – 4" Wide edge line
• 24% answered B – Double 4" wide line
• 12% answered C – Wider bike lane
• 18% answered D – Double 4" wide line with proflled rumble strip
• 16% did not answer
29%
24%12%
18%
16%
10. Which bike lane edge line alternatives do you prefer?
A - 4" Wide edge line
B - 4" Wide profiled edge
line rumble strip
C - Double 4" wide line
D - Double 4"
with profiled rumble strip
N/A, No answer
22
Question 11: Protected bike lanes (sometimes referred to as separated bike lanes) are under
consideration at recommended locations between 11th St and Rainier Ave. What protected
bike lane alternatives do you prefer?
46/49 responses
• 37% answered A – Precast curb
• 10% answered B – Delineator posts
• 10% answered C – Specialty delineators
• 35% answered D – None
• 2% answered E – Other
• 6% did not answer
Question 12: In your opinion, do the proposed alternatives reduce safety concerns while
driving in this area? (i.e., speeding, sight distance, or signal issues)
30/49 responses
Comments:
• “NO! YOUR CREATING A BOGG DOWN AREA BIKES CAN ALREADY USE NORMAL ROADS
AND DO ESPECIALLY AT THESE SPEEDS. THIS IS A WAIST OF MONY AND WILL SLOW
TRAFFIC AND INCREASE ACCIDENTS!”
• “No, it increase safety concerns. The street is already overfiowing with traffic, a reduction in
driving lanes will increase risks.”
• “The proposed would appear to help. Uncertain about the plans between Park and Paciflc.
Plan A would slow traffic and retain parking (though I don't know if people use this parking
much). However it limits people turning into PCHS and Kitsap Bank heading ea stward.
• “These changes will tend to reduce traffic speeds and make 6th street safer for drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists.”
37%
10%10%
35%
6%2%
11. Protected bike lanes (sometimes referred to as separated bike lanes) are
under consideration at recommended locations between 11th St and Rainier
Ave. What protected bike lane alternatives do you prefer?
A - Precast curb
B - Delineator posts
C - Specialty delineators
D - None
N/A, No answer
E - Other
23
• “Yes. I drive this area for work 2x a day, and people speed when the traffic isn't backed up,
and pedestrian movements at unmarked locations mean that there are many suprise stops.
These changes make it safer for drivers because they require us to slow dow n, and reduce
surprise stops from people crossing at odd places because they improve safety of crossing
at the right places.”
Question 13: In your opinion, do the proposed alternatives address safety concerns while
walking or rolling in this area? (i.e., safe crosswalks, access to public transit, or signal issues)
27/49 responses
Comments:
• “6th street is dangerous and unpleasant for people walking and cycling. These changes will
improve safety signiflcantly.”
• “I drive this in the dark a lot and am deeply worried about the visibility of pedestrians and
cyclists. having a center median giving a safe stopping place is such a good idea, and
putting barriers between cars and cyclists seems like a great idea.
Question 14: In your opinion, do the proposed alternatives address safety concerns while
biking in this area? (i.e., speeding, sight distance, or signal issues)
27/49 responses
Comments:
• “The proposed is signiflcantly better than the existing street. I will always advocate
protected bike lanes end to end. Callow and 6th looks great. However, predictability and
consistency are desired. 6th and Naval would be better if it was more like the proposed 6th
and Callow. I support having bike lanes separated by street parking between Paciflc and
Washington, so encourage curbs along the parking spots so cars are unable to park in the
bike lanes. Wider and protected bike lanes especially on hills where climbing is a must. I
think a mix of curbs, posts, and armadillos depends on the use case. I would feel far far
safer for my son to be able to bike with me, protected by a curb.”
• “YES. It is so unsafe for cyclists through these locations. I see them riding with traffic and
worry about them with how wide some of these vehicles are, and removing on road parking
means they don't run the risk of getting hit by open doors.”
• “No. Here is what is still needed: Separated and protected bike lanes the entire way (never
heard of paint keeping my children safe against a car), ZERO turn pockets which are
insanely dangerous, no on street parking at any point (risk of being doored).”
24
Question 15: How would you rate your support of the proposed alternatives to re-channelize
6th Street?
44/49 responses
• 27% answered very supportive
• 12% answered supportive
• 10% answered undecided or need more information
• 6% answered unsupportive
• 35% answered very unsupportive
• 10% did not answer
Question 16 (Optional): What else would you like the project team to know or consider as we
move through the design process?
34/49 responses
Comments:
• “A safe 6th street for bicyclists will be a major improvement to the city. So many would be
riders are too scared to ride in Bremerton and that is understand given the severe lack of
safe routes.”
• “About half the year, the peak commuting hours are in pitch black. Please prioritize
refiectors and other methods of keeping people safe in the dark and dreary.”
• “Cyclists and pedestrians deserve equal or more consideration than cars.”
27%
12%
10%6%
35%
10%
15. How would you rate your support of the proposed alternatives to re-
channelize 6th Street?
Very supportive
Supportive
Undecided or need more
information
Unsupportive
Very unsupportive
N/A, No answer
25
• “I'm concerned about massive delays if Burwell or 11th is closed. The traffic is unbearable
as it is during the PM commute. Take parking off of Burwell to increase traffic fiow. Why
aren't you focused on a massive roundabout at Burwell and Warren instead?”
• “Please be aware that there are many, many vehicle commuters (particularly shipyard
employees and sailors) that use 6th street to commute to and from work. Your plan is to
take away two vehicle lanes to provide safer bike routes, but at the expense of car
mobility/access and individual's commute time. I understand wanting to increase biker
safety, but what is the percentage of bicyclers vs percentage of those that have to commute
by car due to commute distance and/or schedule? Sacriflcing two whole vehicle lanes and
parking spots in a commute area doesn't seem like a great idea.”
• “While this will likely make bike traffic safer, its highly disruptive to the massive amount of
traffic that runs through this street each way every weekday, there are vastly more cars than
bikers and this idea of stripping away an entire lane or even two l anes to instead have for
bikers seems like a waste and will only compound the already growing traffic in the city,
especially in the afternoons.”
Demographics
Demographics Questions Responses
How would you describe your gender
identity?
21 - Females
17 - Males
7 - Prefer not to say
What race/ethnicity best describes you? 1 - Hispanic or Latino
32 - Not Hispanic or Latino
13 - Prefer not to disclose
What race best describes you? 29 - White
2 - Asian
1 - Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 - Multiracial
1 - Other
11 - Prefer not to disclose
Do you have a disability? 9 - Yes
27 - No
10 - Prefer not to disclose
What age group are you in? 11 – 25-34 years old
16 – 35-44 years old
6 – 45-54 years old
4 – 55-64 years old
3 – 65-79 years old
1 – 80+ years old
5 – Prefer not to disclose
26
What language is spoken at home? (Select
one or more)
34 – English only
1 – English and Tagalog
1 – English, Spanish, and Greek
1 – English, Danish, and Farsi
7 – Prefer not to disclose
What is your highest degree or level of
education?
4 - High school graduate
4 - Associate degree
15 - bachelor’s degree
3 - Completed some college
3 - Complete some postgraduate
3 - Graduate or professional degree
9 - Master’s degree
2 – Ph.D.
4 - Prefer not to disclose
What is your household income? 1 – Less than $25,000
5 - $25,000-$49,999
1 - $50,000-$74,999
4 - $75,000-$99,999
6 - $100,000-$124,999
4 - $125,000-$149,999
4 - $150,000-$174,999
4 - $175,000-$199,999
6 - $200,000 and up
11 – Prefer not to disclose
EMAIL COMMENTS
1Nick Ataie
From:Paul Dutky < >Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 12:00 PMTo:Nick AtaieSubject:6th street road diet projectAttachments:20241111 Nick Atai re Diverters v2.pdfCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Nick, I've attached a presentation with a letter I'd like to s hare with you. Paul
Hi Nick,
You provided a clear and understandable presentation on the 6th street road diet project!
Several options that would make biking and driving safer were not included as options in your
presentation. The survey questions are designed to solicit answers that support the project as
presented. I will provide further input regarding viable alternatives from a purely cycling safety
point of view, and also give some more nuanced answers to the alternatives presented in the
survey. By the way, the description of the “pros” for survey question 8B was copied from question
7B and doesn’t apply to question 8.
During the public meeting I brought up the idea of creating a ‘gateway/boulevard into Bremerton,
as per the clear descriptions in the current Comprehensive Plan. HDR staff stated that the police
and fire departments expressed concerns about emergency access if streets were closed or
diverters limited vehicular access to some streets.
The reason to close off three streets on 6th is to protect neighborhoods, increase safety for all
road users, and expedite vehicular throughput. The use of diverters and street closures is seen
across the US and worldwide as a strategy that improves safety. Paris has been in the news
recently for massively expanding bike and pedestrian facilities, often closing streets to do so.
I’ve examples from Victoria, Portland, and Bremerton, which I share below. I don’t think the EMS/
Fire argument against closing Hewitt and Pennsylvania at 6th holds water. A less safe strategy
than road closure would be to make side streets along this stretch right-in and right-out with a
structural median. Either option would allow narrowing the median and widen the area available
to the bike lanes to provide protection. The neighborhood may embrace the idea of eliminating
cars exiting 6th at speed and instead limiting vehicles in the newly created created cul-de-sacs to
people that live there. We should ask them. Paul
Warren Avenue between Burwell and 6th is divided - doesn’t seem to cause a significant
problem for EMS or Fire.
Dividing 6th between Roosevelt and High shouldn’t be a problem either.
Protecting Neighborhoods
in
Portland
(from Almira presentations I made in
2017 and 2018)
Partial Street Closure.
Tillamook / 39th Ave Intersection, where a wide
arterial becomes a wide residential street.
Total Street Closure to reduce
traffic past an elementary school.
Traffic is diverted to a nearby arterial,
and prevented from going straight or
turning right into the neighborhood.
Bicycles are free to move in any
direction.
Looking North
Example 4 Sullivan’s Gulch Neighborhood
How do you protect this neighborhood
from Fred Meyers shoppers wanting to
cut through it to avoid heavy traffic on
this nearby arterial ?
xx
x
xx
Neighborhood Freddy’s
Neighborhood Freddy’s
Wasco
Clackamas
The road to the left is blocked off.
The road to the left is blocked off.
Neighborhood (alley blocked off)
Neighborhood Freddy’s
The road to the left is blocked off.
Alley
Halsey
Neighborhood
Freddy’s
Weidler
Protecting Neighborhoods in Victoria
while simultaneously creating safe
streets for cyclists.
1Nick Ataie
From:Erik Pedersen < >Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 12:36 PMTo:Nick AtaieCc:Jeff Coughlin; Thomas Knuckey; City Council; Greg Wheeler; Jane Rebelowski; Denise Frey; Anna MocklerSubject:6th Street PresentationCAUTION: 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. Nick, Thanks for your presentation on the 6th Street project earlier this week. It seems like a step in the right direction, especially with regard to your acknowledgement of WSDOT's Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) evaluation system, which calls for protected or separated bike lanes in many circumstances. Most of our peer cities on Puget Sound go beyond WSDOT's base goal of BLTS 1 and 2 outcomes on their scale (only BLTS 1 is truly kid and novice-safe), but educating the public about this concept is a big step forward. The presentation brought up five main points in my mind: 1. I saw a BLTS chart shown in the center of the room on Tuesday, but none of the BLTS evaluation outcomes shown along specific road sections. After digging into WSDOT's BLTS guide, I wonder if this recent design consistently meets WSDOT's goal of BLTS 1 and 2 outcomes, since it's such a busy street. I looked at the City's 2020 6th Street and 11th Street Corridor Feasibility Study, and they use a different scale to measure traffic volume than the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) WSDOT's BLTS tables use. Can you please make public the AADT figures for 6th Street and Public Works' own evaluation of where their current design falls on WSDOT's BLTS tables? 2. WSDOT's explanation of how to use its BLTS tables also lists other considerations that might degrade a road's ranking from, say, BLTS 2 to a BLTS 3 (which would then not meet WSDOT standards), such as significant truck traffic or tons of intersecting roads and driveways (which 6th Street has both of in abundance). I think WSDOT's BLTS tables are more of a general guide than a comprehensive ruleset, and they also don't take center turn lanes (as the recent design for 6th includes) into consideration. I'd argue the center turn lane should bump 6th Street half-way down from the "1 thru lane per direction" category to the "2 thru lanes per direction" category. In addition, the original BLTS rating system, which WSDOT's guide is based on, judges that "turn pockets," which sandwich cyclists between two lanes of car traffic and require them to make correct merging decisions, automatically result in a BLTS grade of 3 or 4 and are unacceptable on main bike network routes. No kid or novice cyclist should ever be asked to make correct merging decisions or be sandwiched between lanes of cars and trucks. WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.23 shows an example of a "Protected Intersection" (p. 1310-45) that avoids the need for turn pockets and would almost certainly save lives and increase ridership when paired with protected lanes. Even if our new design for 6th technically meets WSDOT's guidelines per their BLTS tables, it likely does not meet them in spirit because of these other considerations.
2 3. Our evaluation of the 6th Street project should hinge on whether this is Bremerton's main east-west all-ages-and-abilities route. The answer to this question effects every other consideration. I argue that 6th Street should our all-ages route, and if we need to do away with the center turn lane in narrow road sections to provide bike lanes with ample space and ample protection, we must. The city has Burwell and 11th St. as our big vehicle-movers, and there's two elementary schools on or near 6th Street (Naval Ave. and Star of the Sea). Other peer cities of ours around Puget Sound have been willing to cause a small increase in traffic, or remove a row of parking, on selected streets in limited circumstances like this. A "neighborhood greenway" on, say, 8th Street could perhaps remove 6th Street's responsibility to serve all-ages-and-abilities. However, until we see plans for a robust, continuous alternative, most of us will argue that if the center turn lane on 6th needs to go, it needs to go. There would still be space for a center turn lane along most of the route, so the extra traffic shouldn't be bad in relation to the added safety benefits for all road users, including pedestrians and those in vehicles. 4. For the next design presentation, can we please show the public the option of the mini "jersey barriers" Seattle is installing nowadays? The public deserves to at least be made aware of this option, whether we can afford to install them or not. The 2015 Federal Highway Administration Separated Bike Lane Planning Design Guide shows that concrete barriers do, in fact, increase protection from crashes (p. 85). That's also intuitively true to us all. 5. Lastly, if there are any safety measures we're not including in our designs because of cost alone, can we please make a list of them for future consideration? Budget decisions are always difficult, but this type of transparency about our options and decisions would be helpful for everyone engaged in this process. Many thanks, Erik Pedersen Bremerton Planning Commission District 3 Resident From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 8:00 AM To: Erik Pedersen < > Subject: RE: 6th Street Details Good morning Erik,
3 I’m glad you plan on attending the meeting next Tuesday! I can provide some general information below for your questions, but I want to caveat these by saying these questions are much better discussed in a conversation Tuesday and I don’t want to create a situation where information could be taken out of context. I hope you and others can come to the meeting with a collaborative mindset, ask questions, provide perspectives, and most importantly provide feedback. Protected Bike Lanes: We will be including design recommendations for protected bike lanes (unspecified treatment type) at specific locations. We are using WSDOT methodology for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) as a basis for evaluating needs and also considering site-specific factors. WSDOT refers to protected bike lanes as “separated” bike lanes. I can tell you that want will be presented next week will not depict a fully protected bike lane corridor on 6th Street. The rationale is likely more than I could get in an email so I would be happy to discuss in more depth at the meeting. From a City maintenance standpoint, there has been quite the discussion on considerations/needs for maintenance, but I wouldn’t say that is driving (no pun intended) the decision-making process at this point. Road Widening / Right Turn Pockets: One of the primary design goals of this project was to avoid any roadway widening; I’m happy to say that we will, indeed, present a design concept which includes no widening of the existing curbs. We will also have an option which shows curb widening at only one intersection (Naval Ave). Both of these options will include some type of vehicle right-turn treatment at that intersection to meet our current operations standards. The only other right-turn lane needed to meet vehicle operation standards is in the WB direction at Warren Ave. Some other existing right-turn lanes will be shown as removed as they were determined to not be necessary for meeting operational requirements. Overall, much less potential anticipated bike lane/turn lane conflict areas than what currently exists on Kitsap Way. Thanks again for the email and providing some insight into priorities from the bike community; I’ll see you Tuesday. Nick Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation City of Bremerton Engineering Division Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897 From: Erik Pedersen < > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 6:14 PM To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th Street Details 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. Nick, I'm very curious about the details on the 6th Street road diet project. I spent my whole childhood growing up on 7th Street, so 6th was always the boogeyman betwe en me and the nearest park. I'll be there on
Tuesday. Do you know if the bike lanes will be protected?
Is there going to be any road widening at intersection s? Will the bike lane have to merge through any right turn lanes into "turn pockets"? Those are the things the bike community will be looking for.
4 Thanks, Erik Pedersen District 3 Resident
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Tuesday, November 19, 2024 10:36 AMTo:Alden BradfordCc:City Council; Nick AtaieSubject:RE: Public Comments - 6th street redevelopment (Alden Bradford)Mr. Bradford, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members for their consideration. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Alden Bradford < > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 3:34 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th street redevelopment comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, I am writing to share my thoughts on the 6th street project, based on what I saw at last week's open
house. Some of my thoughts are a bit too mathematical t o share in 3 minutes, without a chalkboard at
least. I think we all agree that 6th street is currently too wide. The speed limit on 6th is 25 miles per hour, but people routinely go 35 miles per hour. As any high-s chool physics student will tell you, a car going 35
miles per hour has almost exactly twice the kinetic en ergy of a car going 25 miles per hour, with a much
greater stopping distance as well. Meanwhile, the difference in travel times is negligible. Going 35 miles per hour down the whole 1.4 miles of 6th street would almost (but not quite!) save one minute compared
to going the same distance at 25 miles per hour. Not that you would ever be able to keep that speed up
the whole way, since there are traffic lights to contend with. Nobody should be going 35 miles per hour on 6th street, yet the road is currently designed in a way that encourages cars to go that fast, or
sometimes faster. We want cars to go slower -- that is, if they go on 6th at all. We have other streets (11th street, and Burwell especially) which are designed for through-traffic. 6th str eet goes past a school, local
2businesses which see foot traffic, and people's homes . If 6th street is not your destination, there are
more appropriate roads to drive on. By discouraging pe ople from driving on 6th, we can open it up to
pedestrians and bicyclists. We have the opportunity to make a truly safe and efficient link between
downtown and Charleston. I was shocked when I saw that the new plans for 6th street don't seem to reflect those priorities. Along most of the route, the plan contains no protection fo r bicycle lanes. When I asked one of the engineers at
the open house, he told me that the reason for this is so that there is enough room for the center turn
lanes and side turn pockets. When I asked why we have t urn lanes, he said they serve to position turning
vehicles out of the way of traffic so that cars can go f aster. Why would we want cars to go faster along 6th street? The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. At those speeds, we would be justified in installing speed humps. Why would we take up valuable space (and spend ex tra money, I might add) to put in features to
speed up traffic? Part of the point of this developme nt is to slow traffic down! At intersections the contradictions compound. The pl ans I saw at the open house had lots of turn
pockets -- places at the right side of the road near a c orner, where cars can wait to turn right. These
pockets were frequently mixing with bike lanes at odd angles, which seems dangerous to me. Other
cities are banning turn pockets these days. For example , Paris is underway to have every street
intersection "daylighted" (free of stopped cars and vi sual obstacles within a certain distance of the
corner) by the end of next year. Here is an article abo ut the practice:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-11-28/t he-case-for-daylighting-the-cheap-traffic-
safety-fix-that-cities-need . Again, the only purpose of a turn pocket is to spee d up cars. It does not make
sense to include turn pockets in a place where we want to slow down traffic. Though I only have an outside perspective, I think I see some of how we arrived at these contradictions.
We say "I want to slow down traffic and reduce the numb er of car trips on 6th street. We can do this by
eliminating travel lanes, widening sidewalks, a nd installing bike lanes." The response from the engineers: "We cannot eliminate travel lanes and widen sidewalks and bike lanes because that would slow down
traffic and reduce the number of car trips on 6th stre et". We seem to be talking past one another. The
engineers reported that it would be impossible to re ach the top safety level while maintaining current
vehicle throughput. I agree with that statement! But as the saying goes, "one man's modus ponens is
another man's modus tollens". It is true that we can't have a reasonable level of safety while pushing the
same number of cars through at speed, but that does no t mean we should abandon safety. Rather, we
should abandon speed. Safety, not vehicle throughput, should be our priority. The engineer I spoke with seemed to believe that Cit y Council had given him a mandate to maintain the current level of vehicle throughput. I don't know where he got that idea, I do not know if it is true. I do know that any such mandate is antithetical to the entire purpose of the endeavor. I believe that we can
achieve the top level of safety, so that people will w ant to walk and bike along 6th street. We do not need
to compromise on safety. We can, and we should, compro mise on motorist speed instead. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Alden Bradford
1Nick Ataie
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2024 8:00 PMTo:Nick AtaieSubject:RE: Input Requested - 6th Street Active Transportation Improvement ProjectCAUTION: 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. Nick, I started to fill out the survey- I don’t think it is going to adequately reflect pertinent comments. I am working with Paul Dutky and Travis Merrigan on a more comprehensive response. So, I aborted the survey only partway through. Charlie Michel Cell Home When it comes to addressing the climate crisis, none
2 Information shared at this open house meeting is available on the project website and your feedback is requested through November 30, 2024 by taking the online project survey. • Open House Meeting Handout (PDF) - LINK • Open House Meeting Boards (PDF) - LINK • Project Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) - LINK • Existing Conditions Exhibit (PDF) - LINK • Draft Alternatives Exhibit (PDF) - LINK CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE ONLINE SURVEY Input received will be used to evaluate draft alternatives presented and aid in the development of a recommended corridor design alternative. Please reply directly to this email should you have any questions or need any additional information and thank you in advance for taking the time for make your voice heard and help shape this project. Sincerely, Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation City of Bremerton Engineering Division 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Direct 360.473.2306 nick.ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us City of Bremerton | Public Works & Utilities | Engineering Division | www.BremertonWA.gov
1Nick Ataie
From:Paul Dutky < >Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2024 2:12 PMTo:Nick AtaieSubject:6th street insights updateCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Nick, I visited Pennsylvania and Hewitt Avenues this mornin g, as well as 11th and Montgomery (where there is
a road closure forming a cul-de-sac). I also drove ther e last night on the way home from Jeff Coughlin's 3rd district open house. I need to rethink my position regarding road closures. Pennsylvania: the street is 24 feet wide. When I vi sited last night there was a solid line of cars in both directions, and my car barely fit in between them. Th e cars that were parked there have to exit in the
direction they were parked. It would be impossible to turn around. The landscaping business on 6th
needs access to their parking lot via Pennsylvania, so placing a no-parking area at the end of a cul-de-sac
to facilitate turning around isn't possible. I don't think a cul de sac is possible in this location. Hewitt north: Same dimensions as Pennsylvania, but the re is a better ability to park partially up on the
parking strip next to the road - turning around would be problematic. Hewitt south: Much more room. Street is 24 feet wide, and there is a mountable curb next to 10-foot
wide parking strips on each side of the street - sign s direct cars to park off the street, on the parking strip. This road is amenable to a road closure like t hat at 11th and Montgomery. I still recommend a long unobstructed median and pede strian refuge island at Hewitt. Any decisions
about cul-de-sacs will need to be made later by the community. These streets will be right-in, right-out by default, if you build a continuous median.
2 Paul
1Nick Ataie
From:
Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 4:27 PMTo:City CouncilCc:Nick AtaieSubject:6th St DesignCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Here are comments I would like to have entered into the public record regarding the design for the 6th St design that we saw at the open house: • The quality of the bike facility should be upgraded to a Level of Traffic Stress 2, which could be done by building continuous PROTECTED bike lanes for the ENTIRE length of 6th St. • Eliminate the right turn pockets at Naval that mix both car and bicycle traffic. National standards such as NACTO and State standards such as WSDOT have evolved in recent years to embrace newer street designs that increase safety for vulnerable road users by physically separating them from cars. The design features on Kitsap Way, such painted bike lanes, bike boxes, and turn pockets shared by cyclists and cars, are still approved, but are no longer in vogue. We should adhere to the safest and best current practice recommendations for 6th St. There is one section of 6th St that allows some limited parking, west of Washington Ave. If these parking spaces are a constraint to a six-foot wide protected bike lane (measured from the curb to the fog line beyond the protection) then these few spaces should be removed from the design. Lastly, I did not complete the on-line survey because many questions would not permit me to advocate for protected bike lanes, so answering the questions as given would misrepresent my point of view. My comments here must substitute for the input I would have liked to have made using the City’s survey. Charlie Michel 6088 Kingfisher Ct Bremerton, WA 98312 Cell Home When it comes to addressing the climate crisis, none
1Nick Ataie
From:dianne iverson < >Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:21 PMTo:City CouncilCc:Nick Ataie; dianne iversonSubject:Transportation/livability/disabledCAUTION: 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. Photograph taken by Dianne Iverson, February 2024, Vic toria BC. Chair Jennifer Chamberlin and Bremerton City Councilmembers, Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my th oughts about what makes a more livable city. How do we build upon the strengths of this city in order to make it more livable? Our collective
perspective on what makes a livable city is essential in order to pass policies and budgets that reflect our
common goals. Let me share with you my thoughts as a 74 year old ret iree who happens to be disabled. What is a livable city for me? I, like most people my age, want to be as independent as possible, for as long as possible. One of the
components of a livable city for me is a city that pro vides for safe transportation options. There will be a
time in my life that I will not be able to drive a c ar. Safer street designs for pedestrians, cyclists and those of us who use wheelchairs will provide me with those options. That is why I support a higher standard of safety for 6th street. I support a protected bike lane on 6th street from Callow to downtown.
2Are there cities and neighborhoods that provide for safer streets than just a painted bike lane? Do people use them? Are safer streets a good investment? The answer is yes to all three of these questions. Let me share with you a couple of examples of places that are le ading the way. Victoria, BC has been undergoing a complete streets tr ansformation since 2016 under the leadership of
former Mayor Lisa Helps. We could learn from them. Th ey have protected bike infrastructure where it is
needed, and neighborhood greenways where protected bi ke lanes are not needed. It is quite an
amazing experience to cycle in the city of Victoria. Y ou feel the difference immediately. This fall I spent 6 weeks cycling the Netherlands whe re 35,000 km of safe transportation corridors for
bikes and electric wheelchairs exist. I was surprised and touched by how many people both young and
old use the "bike" infrastructure in their electric wheelchair. It is legal and it is encouraged to do so. We encountered individuals daily using electric wheel chairs on the protected bike facilities in the
Netherlands. I photographed individuals using their c hairs and adaptive bikes at the grocery store,
commuting to work, accessing the train or foot ferry, or enjoying the beauty of a local trail in and out of a
local park. In Bremerton, let's design a complete streets transpo rtation corridor up 6th street so that we can
encourage all ages and abilities to continue to live at home and be part of our community. Sixth street is
the most important gap to fill in building an east/wes t bike corridor. Let's learn from other cities and do it right. Safer streets for all ages and abilities is just one co mponent of a more livable city. I'd like to hear from the council what makes a more livable city for each of y ou and your constituents. It's an important
question that together I hope we can have. That's one component of what makes a livable city for me . Sincerely, Dianne Iverson See two photos below taken in the Netherlands of peo ple using a wheelchair and an adaptive bicycle
that carries a wheelchair.
3
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:29 PMTo:Elizabeth AndersonCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Make 6th Street Safe for Bicycles! (Beth Anderson)Ms. Anderson, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Elizabeth Anderson < > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 6:54 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Make 6th Street Safe for Bicycles! 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. The road diet for 6th Street is a great idea that is lo ng overdue. It would be vastly safer for cyclists if there is a protected bike lane along the whole length of 6th street, instead of just paint. Paint helps cars
understand that they should give room for bicyclists but unfortunately there are drivers that are
inattentive or that just don’t care. Protected bike lan es provide additional safety.
I also support the recommendation of the West Sound Cycle Club to get rid of the proposed turn pockets at the Naval intersection. I don’t think the turn pock ets will help traffic very much; but these turn pockets will be more dangerous for cyclists.
Thank you for reading my comments. In addition to bein g a cyclist, I am concerned about safety on 6th
street because my son lives on 6th street with his p artner, her 5 year old daughter, 3 dogs, and four cats. They deserve a safe street to walk on and to cycle on al ong with the other residents who live in this area. Beth Anderson
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:30 PMTo:Jacob SimonCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Shane Weber; Ned LeverSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Bike lane on 6th st (Jacob Simon)Mr. Simon, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Jacob Simon < > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 7:55 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bike lane on 6th st CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, If they plan on putting a 6th st on a road diet I thin k a bike lane would be a natural choice. you
wouldn't want bikes to compete with cars in the one r emaining lane of traffic anyway. I think if we build a
solid bike infrastructure and gas prices continue to i ncrease we will be seeing an increase in the number
of E-Bikes in town to use those bike lanes. Bikes ar e also better customers for local small businesses. I am much more likely to stop on a bike than in a car. Respectfully Jacob Simon
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:31 PMTo:Kelly TingelstadCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Shane Weber; Ned LeverSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - 6th Street Bike Safety (Kelly Tingelstad)Ms. Tingelstad, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Kelly Tingelstad < > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 5:43 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bike Safety - 6th Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am writing to advocate for more bike safety on 6th Street. Cycling throughout Kitsap County since the early 1990 's has shown little to no improvement in
investment in infrastructure to help keep cyclists s afe! I speak as a former road racer and avid cyclist. It is sad and frustrating to note that although my Count y has many beautiful roads to ride, I no longer ride
most of them. It takes a road trip to Sequim to find a dedicated bike path and enjoyable cycling. The 6th Street improvements should absolutely include: 1. A protected barrier bike lane the entire length of 6th 2. Remove the proposed right turn pockets onto Naval , eliminating cars merging into the bike lane.
2Please get serious about creating safe places to ride!! Things have always been sketchy, but now with all
the distracted driving - cyclists are sitting ducks more than ever. Respectfully, Kelly Tingelstad
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
1Nick Ataie
From:Paul Dutky < >Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 10:04 AMTo:City Council; Nick AtaieSubject:Formal submission of comments regarding the draft 6th street designAttachments:20241120 Community Comments 6th street road diet design.pdfCAUTION: 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. The attached document represents WSCC's formal comment s regarding the draft 6th street design. Paul Dutky, Advocacy Chair West Sound Cycling Club
West Sound Cycling Club Comments on 6th
Street Design
Submitted by Paul Dutky on behalf of WSCC 11.20.2024
The online public survey for the 6th street road diet project (11.13.2024) does not give
the bike community the ability to convey our preferences, which are wholly tied to
maximizing the safety of all those who bike, walk, or roll on city streets. We support
building a connected and separated bike facility from Kitsap Way to Washington
Avenue.
Protected bike facilities are the default design in Portland, Oregon. It is also the
default design when upgrading Washington State highways through population
centers. State Routes 303, 304 and 310 are, respectively, Warren Avenue, Burwell
Street, and Kitsap Way. To the degree possible, Bremerton should adopt this 21st
century approach to reconstruction or resurfacing projects involving city arterials,
including 6th street. A protected 6th street bike facility would set a new standard for
all of Kitsap County, since Bremerton would have Kitsap’s only continuous, useful,
protected facility.
1
1.There is room for a 5-foot protected bike lane the full length of 6th street.
Over 80% of the City’s 6th street
design consists of unprotected,
painted, bike lanes, like the section
of 6th street near Bryan at right.
City staff state there isn’t room to
provide physical separation.
The bike lane at right is located on
Bremerton’s Washington Avenue
near the ferry terminal. It measures
6 feet from curb to the middle of
the single 6-inch white lane line.
The bike lane is 5 feet wide from
curb to the base of the plastic
bollards. A bike lane like this on the
44-foot wide sections of 6th street
would occupy 12 feet, leaving 32 feet
for two through lanes and one turn
lane.
5 feet
6 feet Bryan Ave6th st.
2
Average speeds on 6th street are substantially higher than the posted speed limit of 25
mph, reinforcing the need to narrow the lanes as a traffic calming measure and separate
cyclists from multi-ton cars traveling at what is regarded as a lethal speed in a crash
between car and vulnerable road user.
ALTERNATIVE B
3
Alternative B of the draft 6th street design
(right) has three 10.5-foot lanes = 31.5 feet.
That alternative provides enough room to
install protected bike lanes on 6th like
those on Washington Avenue. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) states lane
widths are measured from the center of each
painted line, so the width of the painted line
is not added to the lane width, it is part of
that measure.
2.A right turn pocket where vehicles cross the bike lane is not needed or desired.
Callow Warren ParkMontgomery
The absence of turn pockets at the above intersections in the City’s proposal reflects a rapidly
evolving trend toward safer street design.
4
The only intersection in the City’s proposed design for 6th street where motorists and cyclists
converge is at the two right turn pockets at 6th and Naval Avenue. These are much more
dangerous than a bike lane that follows the curb.
Alternative B for the Naval Avenue intersection eliminates the west-bound turn pocket (upper
right corner), and does not widen the turn pocket east bound. This will save money and is
preferred over alternative A. However, we strongly advise eliminating the east bound turn
pocket as well. Doing so will create consistency of design throughout 6th street, and facilitate
inclusion of a wider protected bike lane here. Our recommended alternative is shown below.
Bollard and concrete separators are indicated by: The bikeway is shown by a light orange
line:
NAVAL AVENUE WSCC ALTERNATIVE
5
This satellite image of Rosa Parks Way in Portland is a model for a safer Naval
Avenue intersection design with protected bike lanes. There are no right turn
pockets. Use of this design could result in 7-foot protected bike lanes with a two-
foot buffer, 10.5-foot through lanes and an 11-foot left turn lane.
6
7, 2, 10.5, 11, 10.5, 2, 7 = 50 6th street at Naval Avenue is 50 feet wide.
3.6th street seen as a Gateway boulevard with center landscaped medians
In 2017, WSCC invited Dan Burden, an internationally renowned designer of safer streets and
the originator of the term “road diet” to speak at a club meeting attended by several city
officials. The following are excerpts from a letter Dan sent to the Mayor’s office following his
talk:
“6th Street is aligned to be the natural gateway into downtown; it defines your town’s character
and establishes your level of welcome to visitors. A beautiful, quieter, more pleasant corridor
can entice more people to try even challenging commutes or errands by bicycle. Improved
property investments and higher quality of life always result from road diets. Bremerton could
achieve a strong sense of place using this street, but such a road cannot and should not be
about how fast you can drive through the neighborhood. Higher speeds depress property
values, create noise and danger, and leave homes along edges as low-level investments.
Reduction in top end speeding and noise levels, and the opportunity to provide more green
planting space are advantages of road diets.”
No landscaped medians were provided in the City’s draft 6th street design.
7
A center median between Roosevelt and High Avenues on 6th would eliminate left turns,
smooth traffic flow, allow for a landscaped pedestrian refuge island at Hewitt and
expand the bike lane to allow more robust protection for cyclists. There are few, if any
driveways on this section of road. This concept is shown on the next page.
Kiwanis Park
Hewitt AvenueRoosevelt5th Street
7th Street
8
8
Depicted here: a landscaped median is shown in place of a two-
way center left turn lane. This will improve the look and feel of
the street. Left turns are not possible. Some residents would
have to drive a short distance further to reach home.
Landscaped median
7th Street
Highand wider protected bike lanes
WSCC alternative with continuous landscaped median
HewittHewittPennsylvania
9 HewittPennsylvaniaHewittRoosevelt
Public Works staff expressed concern that the EMS and Fire Departments would object
to a continuous median due to loss of emergency access.
This has not been an issue in Bremerton at Warren Avenue from Burwell to 6th Street where
there is a continuous center median.
10
We feel Olympic Avenue Alternative
B is the better choice because it
protects pedestrians with a physically
raised refuge island.
Preserving vehicular access to Olympic
Avenue south of 6th is preferred
because neighborhood access is
poorer there than to the north.
4.Other input requested by Public Works
Increasing driver’s awareness of cyclists and
pedestrians by providing all the markings
shown at right is the safest alternative.
These include bike and pedestrian crossing
markings, and green bike lane approach and
departure markings. Intersection markings
also lower traffic stress by providing guidance
to cyclists.
11
Regarding vehicular lane widths: As cyclists we feel the narrowest allowable lane widths
on 6th street will increase safety by slowing motorists in an urban high density area and
provide room for protected bike lanes throughout the corridor. Wide bike lanes buffer
sidewalks, create comfortable right turns for motorists, and improve visibility. In this
instance, we can’t have wide vehicle lanes and protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes
are our highest priority.
Regarding on street parking alternatives east of Warren Avenue on 6th street: We
recommend creating a door buffer between parked cars and the bike lane. The
“dooring” of cyclists is a known hazard that is mitigated by the door buffer. Motorists are
typically hyperaware when getting into or out of their car on the street, they are often
unaware of approaching cyclists in the door zone.
12
1Nick Ataie
From:Greg WheelerSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 12:33 PMTo:Adam Doehrel; City CouncilCc:Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane Weber; Nick Ataie; Jennifer HayesSubject:RE: 6th Street Redesign InputGood afternoon Adam, Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to provide comments for the 6th St. project. Included in my reply are officials from th e City of Bremerton Public Works Department for their information. Your comments will be added to the pro ject record. Take care, have a great rest of your
day. Sincerely, Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 From: Adam Doehrel < > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 6:11 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th Street Redesign Input CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi everyone - I was unable to attend last night's council meeting but wanted to voice my support for editing a couple key elements of 6th street's design. 1) I believe the entire street needs to have the bik e lanes separated physically from the road, not just in segments. 2) All turn pockets need to be eliminated. Our priority with any transportation design needs to have a north star goal of safety. Our citizens using
these spaces should be able to go from A to B safely an d they trust our city's planners to do that for
them. Families are literally putting their lives in the hands of the city and I don't say that flippantly
because the #2 killer of children in America is car fat alities. Safety has to be non negotiable and that
applies for whoever is using the space whether it is drivers, bikers or walkers. While I'm certain you are going to receive lots of s mart, educated and valid feedback on the 6th street
redesign, those 2 elements above have to be basic table stakes. If you don't build this with safety in
2mind then you will get low utilization and a resentme nt from everyone involved. As my parents always told me growing up, do it right the first time so you don't have to do it a second time. Thank you for your consideration. -Adam Doehrel Resident in District 3
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:31 PMTo:Amy LawrenceCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Shane Weber; Ned LeverSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Bike Lanes on 6th Street (Amy Lawrence)Ms. Lawrence, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Amy Lawrence < > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 11:28 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bike Lanes on 6th Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you to the City of Bremerton for all the bike i mprovements in the recent years. However, to ride
from downtown to Kitsap Way, there is currently no saf e travel for bikes. Adding lanes to 6th St. would
complete safe passage.
Thank you for your support. Amy Lawrence
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:32 PMTo:Bruce AndersonCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Shane Weber; Ned LeverSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Protected bike lanes for 6th street (Bruce Anderson)Mr. Anderson, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Bruce Anderson < > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 12:41 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Protected bike lanes for 6th street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to see Bremerton install protected bike lanes along the entire length of 6th street. I am retired now but I used to work at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. I rode my bicycle to work but had to stop because
it was too dangerous. I had several coworkers who rode their bike to PSNS too and believe that more
people would ride if it were safer. More cyclists wo uld help with parking and traffic problems. Bruce Anderson
1Nick Ataie
From:Greg WheelerSent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:04 PMTo:Heather Pugh; City CouncilCc:Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane Weber; Nick Ataie; Jennifer HayesSubject:RE: Feedback on 6th Street ProjectGood afternoon Heather, Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to provide comments for the 6th St. project. Included in my reply are officials from th e City of Bremerton Public Works Department for their information. Your comments will be added to the pro ject record. Take care, have a great rest of your
day. Sincerely, Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 From: Heather Pugh < > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 2:51 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Feedback on 6th Street Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I completed your project survey but wanted to give more feedback here. As I understand it, Public Works would like to add (2) 5’ wide no-protection bike lanes to 6th Street. This is in line with historically car-centric transport planning, but I think we can do a little better. Elsewhere, cities of all sizes have implemented great designs that could serve as models for Bremerton. We know that paint lines are insufficient for safety. So let's create a more forward-thinking plan to meet both current expectations and long-term goals. The 6th Street project is an opportunity to set a new standard that supports a more liveable Bremerton. We want roadways that prioritize safety, connectivity, and innovation. By not creating a safe, central link for a cohesive non-motorized transportation network, the design falls short of what we really need for the future of Bremerton and Kitsap as a whole. Please consider: -No right turn pockets at Naval Avenue
2-Incorporate 5' fully protected bike lane the length of 6th Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts, Heather "Heddy" Pugh
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Monday, November 25, 2024 1:08 PMTo:Jeff HardinCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - 6th Street Design (Jeff Hardin)Mr. Hardin, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Jeff Hardin < > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 2:25 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th Street Design CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bremerton City Councilmembers, I would like to add my voice to those in support of protected bike lanes on 6th Street. Bike lanes on 6th Street are an important part of the city's bike connect ivity. I work at the shipyard and sometimes I'm a
bike commuter. Transiting Bremerton is when I feel most challenged and my safety most at risk. I know
people who would ride if they felt safer.
When it comes to bike lanes I don't feel like paint i s protection. Anyone who has looked has seen bent sign posts, flexible reflective posts with tire marks, and vehicles blocking lanes. Not being separated
from cars keeps people from using bike lanes even whe re they are available. Unprotected lanes push
people into cars and unnecessarily add congestion and p arking scarcity. To me, generous, safe cycling
infrastructure creates a pleasant, attractive, and desirabl e place to live, visit, and work.
That is why I support safer streets and protected bike lanes for 6th Street. Sincerely, Jeff Hardin
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Monday, November 25, 2024 1:05 PMTo:Christopher SusiCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Note of Support for West Sound Cycling Club recommendations for Protected Bike Lanes on 6th Street in Bremerton (Christopher Susi)Mr. Susi, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Christopher Susi < > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2024 1:43 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Note of Support for West Sound Cycling Club recommendations for Protected Bike Lanes on 6th Street in Bremerton CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, I'm writing to voice my support for the recommendations put forth by the West Sound Cycling Club's
Advocacy team. I especially favor the creation of prote cted bike lanes (not just for bicycles) like that
found on Washington Ave near the Ferry terminal. A pr otected bike lane with bollards or raised curb
delineates where both bikes and cars should be making i t safer and allowing for a greater confidence for
both motorists and cyclists.
I also strongly support removing from the design r ight and left turn pockets at Naval and 6th. This will
allow for consistency for all travellers. In numerous urban environments including Seattle and
Vancouver, BC the bike lanes have their own traffic si gnals. These signals greatly help manage getting
cyclists and other non motorized users through the i ntersections ahead of cars and trucks and stopping
bicycles from entering the intersection just becaus e the motorized traffic lights are green. 6th Street is the gateway to downtown. We have the opportunity to c reate something aesthetically pleasing, safe and
inviting for all. If cyclists and other non motorize d transportation users can feel safe there will
2undoubtedly be an increase in non motorized travel,i.e ., commuting resulting in less car/truck traffic
which is a win for all. Respectively Submitted, Christopher Susi President, West Sound Cycling Club
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Monday, November 25, 2024 1:02 PMTo:sheri somersCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Bike Lanes (Sheri Somers)Ms. Somers, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: sheri somers < > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2024 5:30 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bike Lanes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I support the continuation of 5feet bike lanes on 6th street and doing away with the right turn merge into the bike lane.
With more and more cyclists it’s important to have mor e safer streets for bikes and cars.
Thank you Sheri Somers Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Monday, November 25, 2024 12:59 PMTo:Pam MortonCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Bike safety (Pam Morton)Ms. Morton, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. It is appreciated that you took the time to submit your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Pam Morton < > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 7:56 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bike safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I want to recommend Paul Dutky‘s bike safety improvements. I have had personal experience on Bremerton Streets and note that many drivers are distracted by cell
phones, music and the like. Paint is helpful but not accident proof. I was nearly killed testing a newly painted bike path, w hen the car veered Into the bike lane, just ahead of
me and within a few inches of my front tire. Memorable , absolutely. I was terrified and so grateful that the
worst had not happened. Good bike transportation is a boon to climate change re pair, cost-of-living disparities, healthy exercise,
and host of good things. Please encourage Bike safety. Most sincerely, Pam Morton -- Pamela L. Morton
2
1Nick Ataie
From:Thomas KnuckeySent:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:01 AMTo:jane RebelowskiCc:Ned Lever; Shane Weber; Nick AtaieSubject:RE: 6th and naval intersection Thanks Jane – I’ve copied Engineering on the proposal below. Tom Knuckey, P.E. Director of Public Works & Utilities City of Bremerton Desk (360) 473-2376/Cell (360) 710-0039 tom.knuckey@bremertonwa.gov From: jane Rebelowski < > Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 8:42 AM To: Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th and naval intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Tom, A community member submitted this design for the intersection that eliminates cyclists from having to straddle between two car lanes. Can you please forward to your design team for consideration.
2 Sent from my iPhone
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:19 AMTo:Cory DerenburgerCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - 6th Street Transportation and Naval Ave Improvement Projects (Cory Derenburger)Cory, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Cory Derenburger < > Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 9:50 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th Street Transportation and Naval Ave Improvement Projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Bremerton City Council and Public Works, I am excited to see transportation improvements for both 6th Street and Naval Ave. As a Bremerton resident I have enjoyed walking, running and driving with my family, but I have only recently begun biking more regularly in our city. I would love to be able to bike with my family safely, confidently, and to more places than just around the waterfront together. The proposed projects define dedicated bike lanes where none exist currently, but there are a number of places where safety could be improved. Bike lanes should be for All Ages, and All Abilities. My primary concern for both projects are primarily around the following: Cars and bike lanes crossing or converge heading east-west on 6th at Naval, and heading north on Naval
2crossing 11th street. These crossings are colloquially called "suicide bike lanes". These crossings are stressful, dangerous, and unnecessary. With some modifications these unsafe conditions can be entirely avoided while meeting the objectives of these projects. Both of these conflicting crossings are right near the Naval Elementary School. Since both 6th St and Naval Ave are both proposing to install bike lanes, this is an important intersection to get right. Below is a crudely drawn Protected Bike Intersection, using the same space, while including the car lane changes from each proposal. Distinctions from the 6th St proposal - this removes the conflict point where drivers heading east-west must cross over the bike lane to turn right (I would never take my child through the bike lane in Alternative A in the 6th St proposal as currently designed). This instead moves the conflict point back to the intersection, where cyclists are stopped ahead of cars in a protected area in good sight of cars, and pedestrians are buffered from the intersection. These intersections would divide bikes and cars in both space and time (signal phasing), and does not require bikes to mix with cars to make left turns, and
3cyclists can choose to make a left using the left only lanes, or can follow the bike lane around. These design elements can be found in "NACTO (National Association of Transportation Officials) Don't Give up at the Intersection" (attached, a short read with easy to follow diagrams and real examples) which outlines the elements required or recommended to make safe intersections for bike lanes. There is also a short 2-minute explainer video here, which shows how a standard intersection can use these tools to create safe intersections using the same existing space. I ask that the City Council and Public Works think about these current designs for bike lanes and ask "would you feel safe taking your child or family in these bike lanes?" Right now, I wouldn't feel safe at these intersections. NACTO outlines a hierarchy or design elements or tools to design safe bike intersections, please implement these tools (ranked) to improve safety for our riders. * Bikeway Setbacks * Recessed Stop Lines * Bike-Friendly Signal Phasing * Turn Wedge * Vertical Separation Elements Let's do these intersections right, first time, and please "Don't Give up at the Intersection!" Thank you, Cory Derenburger Bremerton
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:11 AMTo:SpeareCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - Naval Avenue and Sixth Street Road Projects (Jacquelyn Speare)Ms. Speare, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Speare < > Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:08 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Naval Avenue and Sixth Street Road Projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello City Counsel, I am writing to urge you to consider how our street improvements can be made in a way that makes bike riding safer for families. Teaching a child to ride in our city is currently terrifying, the bike lanes are a bare minimum - we can do better! Please consider how to make our city welcoming to families (and bike commuters to PSNS) by adding safer infrastructure with safe routes to school for bikes, safe biking corridors for all of us, and shorter crossing distances at sidewalks. Thank you, Jacquelyn Speare District 3
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:15 AMTo:smokeyspice@gmail.comCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - 6th St Transportation Project (Kristen Sluiter)Attachments:IMG_4740.jpeg; IMG_4741.jpegMs. Sluiter, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email and attachments, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Kristen <s > Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:59 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th St Transpo Feedback 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. After reviewing the plans proposed for the 6th St pr oject. It’s a good first start but simply doesn’t go far
enough to ensure pedestrian and biking safety. I am a former bike commuter in the city of Seattle and can unequivocally say that the current proposals
for bike lanes on 6th need reworking. They still pri oritize the flow of traffic and put bikers at major risk. Especially the 6th and Naval intersection needs to be r econsidered. Please find two different alternatives
to those proposed that prioritize safety. If Bremerton wants to encourage this form of transport ation? Do better and also please educate
constituents on how bike lanes work. Sincerely, Kristen Sluiter
2 "Laughter is the joyous, beautiful, universal evergreen of life." ~Abraham Lincoln
1Nick Ataie
From:Thomas KnuckeySent:Monday, December 9, 2024 7:36 AMTo:Greg Wheeler; Ned Lever; Shane Weber; Nick Ataie; Gunnar FridrikssonSubject:FW: Citizen Comments - 6th street safety improvements (Dianne Iverson)FYI Tom Knuckey, P.E. Director of Public Works & Utilities City of Bremerton Desk (360) 473-2376/Cell (360) 710-0039 tom.knuckey@bremertonwa.gov From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 5:22 PM To: dianne iverson < > Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - 6th street safety improvements (Dianne Iverson) Ms. Iverson, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, which you already provided to the Council Members. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Lori Smith Legislative Office Manager Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov How Do I... | Bremerton, WA - Official Website (bremertonwa.gov) From: dianne iverson <> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 5:04 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski <Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Michael Goodnow <Michael.Goodnow@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; jennifer.chamberlain@ci.bremerton.wa.us; Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Eric Younger <eric.younger@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: dianne iverson <> Subject: 6th street safety improvements
2CAUTION: 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. President Chamberlin and Bremerton City Council-members, Over the last couple of weeks I have been encouraged b y the activity on Streetsmart Bremerton, a
Facebook page started by a group of residents to promot e safer streets. Bremerton residents are clearly
advocating for 6th street to be safer than it currentl y is and safer than the two proposals presented to the
community by city staff recently. I recently overheard a city staff member tell a bike advocate that the bike community is all over the
place. It was stated that we were not in alignment with ourselves. I very much disagree with that
assumption. We are unified. We are unified around havi ng a protected bike lane on 6th street because it
is safer for kids and families to walk, bike and roll. We are unified around NOT wanting either of the two
options on the table from the city staff as our only o ptions. The staff recommendations based on current
research are not safe enough for our families to walk, bike and roll in our city. So what are the residents doing about it? Bremerton residents are researching and designing possible
design options that would make 6th street safer. Yes , the residents are not just complaining, they are
creating possible solutions and sharing these designs on Streetsmart Bremerton. I am in total admiration of the dialogue that has been oc curring on Streetsmart Bremerton Facebook
page around 6th street. Individuals are stepping up and presenting ideas and asking questions that are
totally appropriate. This is the dialogue that should be happening with staff in partnership with the community. I urge you to reach out to individuals in our commun ity advocating for safer streets. Building trust with local residents is an essential part of building a health y community. We have some smart people
investing their time and energy in making Bremerton t he best it can be. If we work together, I believe the final 6th street project will be something we can all be proud of, a safe connector between the
Charleston business district and Quincy Square. It's a good investment for our small businesses to build a safer 6th street. I look forward to continuing the conversation. Below is a photo of a protected bike
lane that we cycled on Saturday. It truly is safer than a painted bike lane. Let's continue to make
Bremerton safe. Dianne iverson
3
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:50 PMTo:Denise PortmannCc:City Council; Nick Ataie; Thomas Knuckey; Ned Lever; Shane WeberSubject:RE: Citizen Comments - 6th Street (Denise Portmann)Attachments:IMG_4346.jpeg; IMG_4345.jpeg; IMG_4344.jpegMs. Portmann, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email and attachments, which will be provided to the Council Members. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be provided to Project Manager Nick Ataie and several Public Works Officials. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Denise Portmann < > Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:13 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 6th Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am part of the StreetSmart Bremerton Facebook group and daily driver on 6th street. I am not writing
you to defend the rights of the car drivers but to m ake sure the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians are
your main priority above all else. The long-term goal o f any city should be to reduce the car traffic and
greatly enhance public transportation. It is your publi c duty to protect the weakest members of your
community aka bicyclists and pedestrians. Nothing has be en decided yet, so please look at the pictures
attached. They were done by a fellow SSB members Cory Derenburger and Jordan Lewis. Best, Denise Portmann
1Nick Ataie
From:City CouncilSent:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 4:19 PMTo:
Cc:Nick Ataie; Vicki Grover; Ned Lever; Shane Weber; Thomas Knuckey; Public Works & Utilities Customer Response; Gunnar Fridriksson; City CouncilSubject:RE: Response to Citizen Comments - Naval and 6th Street Projects Question (Cory Derenburger)Mr. Derenburger, This is to acknowledge receipt of your email, and that the entire email thread below will be provided to the Council Members. Your comments will also be included in the meeting record for the January 8 Study Session, during which this project is currently scheduled for continued discussion. Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 www.BremertonWA.gov From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:56 AM To: Cc: Vicki Grover <Vicki.Grover@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Shane Weber <Shane.Weber@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Public Works & Utilities Customer Response <bremerton1@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Gunnar Fridriksson <Gunnar.Fridriksson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Naval and 6th Street Projects Question Cory, Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed email. As you’re probably aware, use of bicycle signal indications is highly dependent upon several factors including intersection configuration, vehicle/bike volumes, peak hour turning volumes, and intersection operational requirements, and studies which would warrant separating bicycle movement from vehicle movements. If you’re interested, there is some new guidance related to bike signals in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition, Part 4 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/part4.pdf). To date for the 6th Street project, we have not excluded bike signalization from consideration on the project, but further evaluation would be required based on identification on a preferred corridor layout. Additionally, as previously communicated on the project, we are seeking to deliver a balanced and cost-conscious project which is currently budget constrained. Some project elements could potentially be evaluated, recommended, and
2phased-in at a later date under a separate project. At a minimum we would be making signal timing and detection adjustments which considers the new on-street bicycle facilities and will also be looking at opportunities to improve safety for pedestrians. I appreciate the reference to NACTO’s dedicated intersection especially given its implementation requires less space than a fully protected intersection – I will ensure this is included along with other comments and suggestions provided as we work towards a viable preferred project alternative. If you are not aware, there will be some initial discussion this afternoon at the Public Works Committee meeting (https://www.bremertonwa.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=3298) related to multimodal level of service policy. While not directly related to the 6th Street project, any potential new or updated policies related to multimodal transportation could more clearly inform active transportation project development including the magnitude and type(s) of improvement. Once such example of this for bicyclist is defining a methodology for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) which could be granular enough to differentiate intersection configurations such as the dedicated intersection presented by NACTO. Vicki Grover, copied on this email, may follow-up with more specifics related to the Naval project as well. Sincerely, Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation City of Bremerton Engineering Division Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897 From: Cory Derenburger Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 9:38 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Naval and 6th Street Projects Question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, I had a question about if there are any plans for bike s ignals in these projects? The overview on the Naval
project seems to allude to this, but I don't see muc h in the FAQ about signal improvements on the 6th
street project. The 6th Street plan from what I see only shows the bike signal at Washington (which I do
like heading south into the sharrow). If there are pl ans for bike signals and detectors, generally what kind? I will continue to advocate for a protected intersecti on and 6th and Naval, but even if we cannot have a
protected intersection there due to space or other c onsiderations, can we employ at a minimum the
elements outlined in NACTO Dedicated Intersections https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-
intersection/dedicated-intersections/ Protected elements are more limited in this intersec tion design than a protected bike intersection. It
includes elements such as phased bike signaling, set b ack stop bar for vehicles, and speed humps. "Signals: Using a combination of a leading bike signal phase or interval, and setting back the stop bar for motor vehicles, people on bikes get a head start before cars start turning. A Leading Bike + Pedestrian Interval (LBI) can be provided if a shared through/turn lane is next to the bikeway. If a dedicated right or
3left turn lane is next to the bikeway, protected-permissive bike signal phasing should be considered.25 Protected signal phases should be considered if turn volumes from the adjacent lane exceed 120 to 150 vph. Protected signal phases should also be considered if conflicting left turn volumes (on two-way streets) across the bikeway exceed 60 to 90 vph, or if these turns cross multiple traffic lanes." I do not like turn pockets, please keep cyclists sep arated on the side in our own lane. This helps with
predictability for both motor vehicles and cyclists, and would go a long way to reducing friction between
road users and unsafe mixing at turn pockets.
*as a bonus the curb also gives us a foot rest at inter sections, and helps us get moving faster If not in the plan, please consider adding bike signal s and detectors, in addition to vehicle setbacks
from Dedicated Intersections. I don't know the vph, but bike signals along 6th and N aval could make things safer for cyclists, and I think
drivers would benefit by knowing what is expected at each intersection. Let's not make drivers and
cyclists on these busy streets guess what the other will do negotiating a merge or crossing an
intersection, let's have the infrastructure manage the se interactions for all users and keep everyone
safer. Thank you, Cory Derenburger Bremerton
6 TH STREET
PROJECT UPDATE
JANUARY 8, 2025
Active Transportation Improvement Project
Nick Ataie, P.E. – PW&U Engineering Division
REVIEW OF PROJECT PURPOSE
Improve Vehicle, Cyclist, and Pedestrian Safety &
Comfort through Roadway Re-Channelization
Vehicle:
Cyclist:
Pedestrian:
Improve Safety Through Reduced Conflicts & Vehicle Speeds
Improve Safety & Comfort Through Dedicated Facilities / Re-Channelization
Improve Safety & Comfort Through Re-Channelization & Spot Improvements
Previous Studies Recommending Roadway Re-Channelization
•Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (2007)
•Strategic Road Safety Plan (2020)
•6th St and 11th St Corridor Feasibility Study (2020)
•Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan (2023)
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Lane Configuration
Supplemental Bike Markings
Vehicle Turn Movements New RRFB Ped Crossings
Bike Lane Type On-Street Parking
Traffic SignalsTransit / Bus Operations
Intersection Operations
Standards & Best PracticesPresented November 2024
Right-of-Way
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED CONSIDERED…
PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY
Emphasis on Bike Safety
Online Survey
•49 Responses – Many of the alternative preferences were split or inconclusive
•RRFB Crossings, providing separate right-turn lanes, and bike lane physical
protection noted as highest alternative priorities
•Precast curb bike lane protection preferred over flexible delineator posts
•Written survey response themes include concerns of traffic congestion and a
desire for increased cyclist safety
Written Comments
•28 Emailed Comments – Almost all focused on a desire for increased cyclist safety & separation
•Focus on providing corridor-wide bike lane protection
•Focus on eliminating separate right-turn lanes (especially at Naval Ave)
•Some comments provided alternate intersection or re-channelization design not presented
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
Specific Locations Only
RECOMMENDED
DESIRED
CONSIDERATIONS
Project-Wide / “Hard”
Protection
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) 2 Target, Available Buffer
Space from Vehicle Lanes, Low-Cost Implementation
•Undefined Policy / Methodology / Standards
•Lack of available roadway width to meet standard(s) in some areas
•Significant number of driveways and transit stops (25% - 55% would
remain “unprotected”); High vehicle traffic volumes
•Initial cost could exceed current budget
•Long-term operations & maintenance considerations
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS – WSDOT METHODOLOGY
Separated Bike Lane
•Requires a minimum 2-foot
buffer
•Requires “vertical features”
within the buffer
AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic
Target Speed = Desired Highest Vehicle Travel Speed Sought
Only 2-Lane Roadways
with Under 3,000 AADT
and Under a 35 mph
Target Speed are
Considered BLTS 1 when
Separated Bike Lanes are
Provided
6th Street AADT
±13,400 West of Warren
Separated Bike Lanes Can
Provide BLTS 2 on Most
Urban Roadways
2 3 41
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
6TH STREET TYPICAL SECTION
TYPICAL (CALLOW – WARREN)
TYPICAL (WARREN – WASHINGTON)
•Placement of flexible posts just inside bike lane edge line would
generally provide a minimum 5-foot effective bike lane width.
•Higher vehicle traffic segment
•Placement of flexible posts just inside bike lane edge line would
not provide a minimum 5-foot effective bike lane width.
•Lower vehicle traffic segment
•Additional width would require elimination of all existing on-
street parking and turn lanes (not recommended)
Minimum 10’ – 6” Travel Lanes Shown to Accommodate Transit Vehicles & Corridor Designation as “T-3” Freight Corridor
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
Flexible Delineator Post Scenarios
PROS
Lowest Initial Construction Cost
Can be Installed in Narrow Spaces
High Driver Visibility
Allows Emergency Access
CONS
High Maintenance Need
Not “Hard” Protection
Not “Continuous” Protection
Flexible Post Delineators Exhibit (Montgomery Ave to Bryan Ave)
WB Bike Lane ±63% Delineator Coverage
EB Bike Lane ±56% Delineator Coverage
Flexible Post Delineators with Buffer
Flexible Post Delineators without Buffer
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
Estimated Cost
DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATION
11th St to Montgomery Ave
Highland Ave to Washington Ave (WB)
240 Estimated Delineators
$80,000 Estimated Construction Cost
CORRIDOR-WIDE PROTECTION
Project-Wide
950 Estimated Delineators
$315,000 Estimated Construction Cost
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) *
2
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) * **
2
* Based on use of WSDOT BLTS Methodology
** Majority of project would not provide
minimum 2-foot buffer requirement to be
considered a “Separated” Bike Lane per WSDOT
Precast Curb with Delineator Posts
2x Cost Estimated Versus Only
Providing Flexible Delineator Posts
No BLTS Impact *
Requires additional width for installationAlternate “Hard” Treatment
SEPARATED/PROTECTED BIKE LANES
Current Staff Recommendation
General Discussion and Next Steps
Provide physical bike lane protection only at specific locations which would allow for minimum 2-foot buffer
between vehicle lane and effective bike lane edge; Distribute project budget for other improvements
Option
•Corridor-wide bike lane protection strategy with additional guidance/direction
•Document required design variances related to minimum bike lane width
•Report to the Public Works Committee and Council on refined cost estimates/needs, considerations, and
opportunities during detailed design development phase
Additional Considerations
•Bike lane protection type (flexible post vs. curb)
•Project budget implications
•Assessment and strategy on long-term operations and maintenance will be needed by PW&U
VEHICLE RIGHT-TURN LANES
Per Project Traffic Study
(3 Locations)
RECOMMENDED
DESIRED
CONSIDERATIONS
No Right Turn Lanes
(Especially at Naval)
AM & PM Peak Hour Vehicle Volumes (2023 & Estimated 2044), NBK-
BR Gate Operations, Vehicle Level of Service Minimums per Current
Policy (City “E” or Better, SR-310 “D” or Better), Right-of Way
•Substandard Peak Hour Vehicle Operations / Growth Management Act (GMA)
•Likely Negative Impact on Driver Behavior(s) During High Congestion
•Would Avoid Right-of-Way Acquisition at Naval Ave
•Eliminates Vehicle / Bike “Mixing Zone” ConflictNaval6th
WB
EB Warren6th
WB
•EB at Naval – Recommended for NBK-BR Gate Queueing (AM)
•WB at Naval – Recommended to Mitigate 2044 Approach LOS “F” (PM)
•WB at Warren – Required to Mitigate Intersection LOS “F” (PM)
VEHICLE RIGHT-TURN LANES
“Through Bike Lane” or “Bike Pocket” Design (NACTO) – Naval & Warren Alternatives
“Combined Bike/Turn Lane” (NACTO) – Naval EB Alternative (No Right-of-Way Option)
•Leads to more predictable bicyclist and motorist travel
movements
•Alerts motorists to expect and yield to merging bicycle
traffic
•Used where there is a right turn lane but not enough space
to maintain a standard-width bicycle lane at the
intersection
•Reduces the risk of ‘right hook’ collisions at intersections
•Currently used at several locations on Kitsap Way
Bike Lane Offset from Curb
VEHICLE RIGHT-TURN LANES
Current Staff Recommendation
General Discussion and Next Steps
•Defer WB right-turn lane at Naval Ave (Meets intersection operation levels)
•Provide EB combination right-turn lane at Naval Ave (Mitigate AM Naval Gate operations)
•Provide WB right-turn lane at Warren Ave (Mitigate substandard intersection operation levels)
Option
•Do not provide EB combination right-turn lane at Naval Ave understanding that Naval Gate queueing
may create other area traffic-related issues
•Used gained roadway space to provide additional bike lane buffering and/or protection
Additional Considerations
Traffic impacts of Naval Gate operations have not been studied in detail and are problematic to model as
queueing, spillover, and delays are variable and dependent on internal Navy operations
ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Developed Project Design Options Estimated within Current Budget (±$3 Million)
1.No Curb Widening / ROW at Naval Ave with Any Combination of Alternatives Presented at Open House
2.Curb Widening / ROW at Naval Ave with Only Minimal Re-Channelization Improvements (Basic Markings +
RRFBs)
•Excludes RRFB paved medians, bike signal alternatives, and enhanced bike lane channelization
Estimated Cost Impacts of Other Project Scenarios
•Provide Additional Project-Wide Bike Lane Protection (Add $235,000+) **
•Would require elimination of other alternatives and/or identifying additional project funding
•Remove Shared EB Right-Turn Lane at Naval (Negligible Cost Impact)
** Based on use of lower-cost flexible delineator posts for bike lane protection; Cost to double for precast curb protection
NICK ATAIE, PE
PROJECT MANAGER – ENGINEERING
NICK.ATAIE@CI.BREMERTON.WA.US
360-473-2306
QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION
www.bremertonwa.gov/404/Projects
6th Street Active Transportation Improvement Project
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Confirm Appointment of Tia Hudson to the
Arts Commission
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: Executive
Presenter: Mayor Wheeler
Phone: (360) 473-5266
SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the appointment of Tia Hudson to Position #7 on
the Bremerton Arts Commission. The term expires December 31, 2025. Ms. Hudson has been a
resident for over 20 years.
ATTACHMENTS: Application for City Boards/Commissions/Committees
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to confirm the appointment of Tia Hudson to the Arts Commission for the term expiring
December 31, 2025
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
B1
1
Jennifer Hayes
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:21 PM
To:WebMaster; Greg Wheeler; Jennifer Hayes
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Application for City Boards / Commissions / Committee
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.
Application for City Boards / Commissions / Committee
Date 9/11/2024
First Name Tia
Middle Name M.
Last Name M Hudson
Home Phone
Address1
Address2 Field not completed.
City Bremerton
State WA
Zip 98312
Occupation Retired
Employer Field not completed.
Work Address1
Work Address2 Field not completed.
City Bremerton
State WA
Zip 98312
Work Phone
Fax Field not completed.
2
Email
Education MFA Creative Writing
Local References Arts Commission, Mayor Greg Wheeler
I am interested in
serving:
Arts Commission
Is this an application for
reappointment?
No
How long have you lived
in Bremerton
20 + years
Why are you applying for
this appointment?
We need a representative of the written arts
Which of your personal
and / or professional
interests prompted you
to apply for this
appointment?
Being Poet Laureate
Have you ever served on
any other Bremerton
board, commission,
committee or task
force? If yes, please list.
te
Please list your
qualifications for this
appointment (include
skills, activities,
training, education):
Three terms as Poet Laureate, 17 years teaching English
creative writing, composition, and literature at Olympic College
What are your
community interests
(committee,
organizations, special
activities)?
Ten Minute Typewriter Poems on First Friday Art Walks;
Episcopal Church - currently working on national level
regardiong Bi-vocational Ministries.
Please list any
accommodations you
need to perform
volunteer duties:
Field not completed.
3
We welcome your willingness to serve Bremerton.
Pursuant to the Washington Public Disclosure Act, (RCW 42.56), this form
constitutes a public record and is subject to public release upon request. Prior to
release, the following information may be redacted pursuant to RCW 42.56.250(3):
Residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone
numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, driver’s
license numbers, identicard numbers, and emergency contact information of
employees or volunteers of a public agency, and the names, dates of birth,
residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone
numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and
emergency contact information of dependents of employees or volunteers of a
public agency.
Applicants are considered for appointment without regard to race, color, religion,
gender, national origin, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, marital or
veteran status, or the presence of any disability.
Updated 3/24/2020
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with
Kitsap County for Housing Incarcerated
Individuals
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: Police
Presenter: Ryan Heffernan
Phone: 370.473-5777
SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County entered into an agreement for incarceration
of prisoners on January 22, 2018 (“Agreement”), and subsequently entered into amended
agreements through December 31, 2024. The 2025 daily rate has been increased to $204.00, from
the 2024 daily rate of $157.05, per calendar day for each incarcerated individual.
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Housing Incarcerated Individuals
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $1,948.425 budgeted for 2025.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County for Housing Incarcerated Individuals,
and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and
conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
B2
1
8.15.2024
KC-
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR HOUSING INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS
THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS (“Agreement”) is between Kitsap County, a Washington state political subdivision
(“County”), and the City of Bremerton, a Washington state municipal corporation (“Agency”).
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW, allows public agencies to enter into
interlocal cooperative agreements to provide services and activities each agency is authorized to
perform by law.
WHEREAS, the County is authorized to operate a facility to house adult persons arrested and
sentenced for criminal activities not exceeding one year for punishment, correction, and
rehabilitation.
WHEREAS, the Agency does not own or operate a jail and desires access to the Kitsap County
Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) Jail (“Jail”) to house persons arrested, charged, and/or convicted of a
criminal offense.
WHEREAS, the County is amenable to accepting and keeping Incarcerated Individuals received
from the Agency for compensation paid at its true and full value as required by RCW 43.09.210
subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by
reference and the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
A. Bed–Day means the calendar day an Incarcerated Individual is booked and held in
custody at the Jail, which includes the booking process. This definition excludes persons
booked and released on the same day.
B. Book and Release Rate means the rate charged to book and release a person on behalf
of the Agency. This is a flat rate, which is half of the current Daily Rate, when a person
is physically present in Jail for 12 hours or less.
C. Booking means registering, screening, fingerprinting, inventorying, and safekeeping
personal property, warrant checks, and other activities associated with processing a
person for confinement in the Jail.
D. Capacity means the maximum number of Incarcerated Individuals the Jail has the
operational capacity to house while providing safe and humane conditions of
confinement as determined by the County. The determination of capacity is based on a
variety of factors such as the physical layout and design of the Jail, staffing, emergencies
(e.g., riots, pandemics, and other natural disasters), and other resources available to
provide the basic necessities such as shelter, food, water, and medical care.
E. Chief means the person designated as the KCSO Chief of Corrections or designee.
F. Daily Rate means the rate charged the Agency for every Bed-Day an Incarcerated
2
8.15.2024
Individual is housed in the Jail on behalf of the Agency, which commences from the time
the Incarcerated Individual arrives at the Jail for booking and ends as provided herein.
The last day will be charged as a half day, regardless of the release time. The Daily Rate
reflects the actual cost to the County for housing a person in the Jail as provided in RCW
43.09.210 and includes the cost of the Jail Health Care Provider.
G. Health Care Services means the medical, mental health, and dental care services and
treatment, prosthetics devices, prescriptions, laboratory tests, imaging, medical
equipment, emergency services, supplies, medications, and all other services,
treatment, and the like provided for Incarcerated Individuals.
H. Incarcerated Individual means a person housed, pretrial and post-conviction, in the Jail
on behalf of the Agency for a violation of law. It includes any person whose arrest results
from charges initiated by the Agency. Arrests made by Agency officers on extraditable
warrants issued by agencies outside Kitsap County will be considered County inmates.
I. Intake Standards means the Jail policies and procedures identifying the requirements
for accepting persons for confinement. The Jail agrees to provide the Agency prior notice
when the Intake Standards are changed. The Jail may change Intake Standards in an
emergency without prior notice. In such an event, notice will be provided to the Agency
as soon as practicable.
J. Jail Health Care Provider means the inhouse entity that contracts with the County to
provide Health Care Services for Incarcerated Individuals housed in the Jail.
K. Jail Policies means the KCSO Jail policies, rules, procedures, and standards governing
the Jail's operation, including any emergency security rules.
L. Lawful Basis means the Agency has determined and is certifying to the County that the
person the Agency is presenting for incarceration in the Jail is legally detainable by the
Jail. The Agency is solely responsible for making this determination. It shall defend,
indemnify, and hold the County harmless for and from any claim or action resulting from
the wrongful detention of such person.
M. Other Costs means all costs incurred by the County on behalf of the Agency’s
Incarcerated Individuals, which includes Health Care Services that are not the financial
responsibility of the Jail Health Care Provider, Outside Health Care Services, off-site
transportation, and security provided by County staff and not paid by Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services, Medicaid, the Incarcerated Individual, or any
other responsible third party.
N. Outside Health Care Services means Health Care Services provided for an Incarcerated
Individual by an entity other than the Jail Health Care Provider.
O. Shared Bed-Day means the period an Incarcerated Individual is held in the Jail on behalf
of the Agency under this Agreement while also being held by another agency and/or the
County. The rate for Shared Bed-Days is divided by the number of agencies with current
holds. Non-contract agencies will not be factored in when calculating Shared Bed-Days.
The Shared Bed-Day also applies when calculating the Book and Release Rate.
P. WASPC means the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs.
2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the Agency access to the Jail located
3
8.15.2024
at 614 Division Street, Port Orchard, Washington, 98366, to house Incarcerated Individuals
and define the responsibilities of the parties as contemplated in RCW 39.34.030.
3. ORGANIZATION. This Agreement does not create, nor do the parties intend to establish a
separate legal or administrative entity subject to suit through this Agreement.
4. ADMINISTRATOR. The Chief shall function as the administrator of this Agreement in
coordination and cooperation with the Agency’s Chief of Police or designee. Neither party
intends to assume responsibility or liability for the actions or failures to act of the other party
and/or their respective employees.
5. EFFECTIVE DATE, DURATION. The Agreement shall be effective on January 1, 2025, and
remain in effect until December 31, 2025, unless terminated or extended. This Agreement
may be extended for additional consecutive terms upon the parties' written agreement.
6. FILING. Prior to entry into force, this Agreement will be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor’s
Office or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency’s website or other electronically
retrievable public source in compliance with RCW 39.34.040.
7. PROPERTY. The parties do not anticipate acquiring property to perform this Agreement. Any
property acquired by a party during this Agreement shall be held by and remain the property
of the acquiring party.
8. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement with 120 days prior written notice
to the other party. A terminated party assumes no responsibility for the acts or omissions
occurring after the termination effective date (assuming all Agency inmates have been
removed from the Jail) but will remain liable for all costs, acts, or omissions occurring prior to
the termination effective date. In the event of termination, the parties agree to meet within 30
days of receipt of notice to coordinate the transportation and removal of all Incarcerated
Individuals from the Jail to a new location prior to the termination date. The terminating party
shall be responsible for the cost of such transportation and security.
9. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Custody. The County will accept persons the Agency presents to the Jail for confinement,
punishment, and/or rehabilitation and hold the Incarcerated Individuals until the Agency
resumes custody or the Incarcerated Individual is lawfully released from Jail custody,
subject to the terms of this Agreement.
B. Lawful Basis for Confinement. Custody of any person is not transferred to the Jail until
the Jail has accepted physical control of the person as provided in this Agreement, the
Agency has provided the Jail with proper documentation identifying a Lawful Basis for
confinement and, when requested by Jail staff, the person has been medically cleared by
the hospital. Adequate documentation means a valid and confirmed arrest warrant,
judicial order of commitment, or other lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
C. Right to Refuse. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Jail has the discretion to refuse to
admit any person when: i) the person reasonably appears in need of immediate medical,
mental health, or dental care until the Agency has provided the requisite care to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Jail as evidenced by medical clearance documentation
from the hospital; ii) the Jail is at Capacity; iii) acceptance of the person would violate
Jail Policies or Intake Standards; or iv) the person’s paperwork is not adequate or
complete.
4
8.15.2024
D. Compliance with Jail Policies, Notice of Health Care Issue. The Agency and its agents
delivering a person to the Jail for confinement shall comply with this Agreement, Jail
Policies, and Intake Standards, which includes informing Jail staff of the Incarcerated
Individual’s reasonably known physical and mental health care issues. This advisory shall
include any injuries the Incarcerated Individual may have sustained during the
investigation, arrest, and transport to the Jail.
E. Responsibilities upon Assumption of Custody. Upon accepting custody of the
Incarcerated Individual, the County agrees to house the Incarcerated Individual as
provided in this Agreement.
10. COMPENSATION
A. Compensation. The parties intend the Agency to bear all costs for housing an
Incarcerated Individual, including the cost of Health Care Services.
1. Book and Release Rate. The Agency agrees to pay the Book and Release Rate for
each person Booked and Released in the Jail on behalf of the Agency, charged at
half of the Daily Rate.
2. Daily Rate. The Agency agrees to pay the County a Daily Rate of $204.00 per
calendar day for each Incarcerated Individual housed in the Jail, which shall be
apportioned as appropriate for Shared-Bed Days.
3. Standard Mileage. The Agency agrees to reimburse the County for mileage at the
then-current standard mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service when the
County is responsible for transporting the Incarcerated Individual off-site.
4. Correction’s Officer rate. The Agency agrees to pay the correction’s officer rate of
$63.30 per hour for the cost of each County staff person providing transportation and
security for the Incarcerated Individual to receive Outside Health Care Services.
5. Other Costs. Unless otherwise provided herein, the agency shall pay all Other Costs
to the County and third parties incurred on behalf of Incarcerated Individuals.
B. Billing. The County will send the Agency an itemized invoice monthly for amounts due.
The Agency shall pay the invoiced amount within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
C. Determination of Case Status. The Agency will not be responsible for the Daily Rate for
an Incarcerated Individual charged with a felony, in the Agency-initiated case, by the
Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office. However, the Agency will remain responsible for
reimbursing the County for Other Costs.
11. HEALTH CARE SERVICES
A. Health Care Services. The County will make Health Care Services available to
Incarcerated Individuals consistent with Jail Policies.
B. Outside Health Care Services. The Agency will pay all costs associated with providing
Outside Health Care Services for Incarcerated Individuals (“Other Costs”), except:
1. The originating agency will be responsible for persons arrested and confined on
5
8.15.2024
warrants issued in Kitsap County.
2. The County will be responsible for Persons arrested and confined on warrants issued
by agencies outside Kitsap County.
3. The County will be responsible for Outside Health Care Services resulting from
physical injuries sustained by the Incarcerated Individual while housed in the Jail.
4. The County will be responsible for the Incarcerated Individual convicted of a felony
on the Agency-initiated case.
C. Emergency, Non-emergent, and Non-Hospital Care outside the Jail - Notification. For
emergency care, the County will notify the Agency by email within four (4) business hours
of transport (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST). The County will notify the
Agency before noon on the next business day for non-emergent and non-hospital care
outside of the jail. The Agency is responsible for providing the Chief with current contact
information for the person to whom emergency notice should be provided.
D. Return for Health Care Services. The Agency may resume custody of an ill or injured
Incarcerated Individual by picking the person up at the Jail, except when the County
determines the Incarcerated Individual requires emergency Health Care Services; the
County may arrange for emergency Health Care Services at the Agency's expense.
E. No Waiver of Right to Seek Reimbursement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall
be construed to waive the rights of either party to seek reimbursement for costs from the
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Medicaid, the Incarcerated
Individual, or any other responsible third party.
F. Medication. The cost of providing medication for Incarcerated Individuals is included in
the Daily Bed Rate to the extent included in the County’s contract with the Jail Health
Care Provider. This consists of providing a prescription and/or a supply of medication
upon release in compliance with WASPC accreditation standards. Medications not paid
by the Jail Health Care Provider or a third party are Other Costs the Agency pays.
G. HIPAA and HITECH Compliance. The parties agree to comply with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH
Act), and laws and regulations, including chapter 70.02 RCW.
H. Prison Rape Elimination Act. The parties agree to comply with the standards established
by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 (P.L. 108-79).
12. HOUSING, JAIL, CLASSIFICATION, DISCIPLINE, RECORDS
A. Jail Housing. The County will house Incarcerated Individuals on behalf of the Agency,
subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Jail Policies.
B. Bail. The Jail will serve as an agent for the Agency in receiving bail bonds and monies
posted for or by an Incarcerated Individual with the County, which will be promptly
forwarded to the Agency as required by law.
C. Classification. The Jail will classify and house Incarcerated Individuals consistent with
Jail Policies. The Agency shall provide the Jail with sufficient information regarding each
6
8.15.2024
Incarcerated Individual to enable the Jail to make classification determinations.
D. Jail Policies, Discipline. All Incarcerated Individuals are subject to and must comply with
Jail Policies. The jail will discipline Incarcerated Individuals in a manner consistent with
jail policies.
E. Early Release Credit. Jail Policies will apply to determine early release credits for
Incarcerated Individuals, including the removal of earned release credits for
administrative sanctions for disciplinary violations.
F. Records. The Jail will maintain a comprehensive records management system for all
Incarcerated Individuals as required by law and make copies of such records reasonably
available to the Agency in compliance with the law.
G. Video Court Appearance. The Jail will make Incarcerated Individuals available to appear
for court appearances via video. Additions to the Agency video court calendar must be
received by 0600 the day of the requested appearance. Additions received later than
0600 will be scheduled the following judicial day. Video court will not be used for non-
criminal traffic violations or any other civil matter.
H. Accounts. The Jail will establish and maintain an account for each Incarcerated Individual
and credit the account with all money received from or on behalf of the same. The Jail
may make disbursements from the account for items purchased from the Commissary
and other expenditures, garnishments, and the like as authorized by law.
I. Programs. The Jail will provide Incarcerated Individuals with the same access to
educational, recreational, and social service programs as other persons housed in the
Jail, consistent with Jail Policies.
J. Visitation. The Jail will provide Incarcerated Individuals with the same access to visitation
available to all persons housed in the Jail consistent with Jail Policies.
13. TRANSPORTATION, REMOVAL, ACCESS
A. Transportation. The Jail will provide transportation and security for Incarcerated
Individuals when necessary to secure Outside Health Care Services or when required to
support the orderly operation of the jail, as required by court order and/or extraditions,
which shall be reimbursed as provided herein. Transportation and security will be
provided by County corrections officers and/or KCSO Deputies. The jail will determine
the number of staff needed to provide transportation securely.
B. Removal. The Agency’s Incarcerated Individuals may be removed from the Jail for any of
the reasons identified below:
1. Agency Request. The Incarcerated Individual may be returned to the Agency upon
written request from an authorized representative of the Agency. The transport will
be by the Agency or the Jail as provided herein.
2. Court Order. The transportation will be provided by an order of a court having
jurisdiction over the Incarcerated Individual.
3. Treatment Outside of Jail. To receive Outside Health Care Services or other services
unavailable within the Jail.
7
8.15.2024
4. Emergency. In the event of an emergency that presents an imminent threat to the
health, safety, or welfare of the Incarcerated Individual, County personnel, and/or the
public. In its discretion, the County will determine whether to remove and/or release
the Incarcerated Individuals. In such cases, the County will exercise reasonable care
for the safekeeping, custody, and relocation of the Incarcerated Individual and inform
the Agency of the same.
5. Agreement Termination. If the Agency terminates this Agreement, the Agency shall
provide transport for its Incarcerated Individuals, at its sole expense, on or before the
effective date of termination. If the County terminates the Agreement, the County will
provide transport to remove Incarcerated Individuals. The Agency shall remain
responsible for paying for the Daily Bed Rate and Other Costs for each Individual
Incarcerated until removed.
C. Agency Resumption of Custody. The Agency shall be deemed to have resumed custody
of an Incarcerated Individual upon the County's presentation of the Incarcerated
Individual to the Agency or when the Agency takes physical control of the same.
D. Jail Access. The Agency may inspect, at mutually agreeable times, the Jail to confirm
compliance with this Agreement and the treatment of Incarcerated Individuals.
E. Access to Incarcerated Individual. Agency public safety personnel may interview its
Incarcerated Individuals at reasonable times within the Jail. The Jail interview rooms will
be made available for use.
14. ESCAPE, DEATH
A. Escape. The Jail will notify the Agency as soon as practicable in the event of the escape
of an Incarcerated Individual. The County will have the primary authority to direct the
investigation and to pursue the Incarcerated Individual within its jurisdiction. Any costs
related to the investigation and pursuit within its jurisdiction will be the responsibility of
the County. The County will not be required to pursue and return the escaped
Incarcerated Individual from outside the County.
B. Death. The Jail will notify the Agency as soon as practicable in the event of an
Incarcerated Individual's death. The Port Orchard Police Department or the Kitsap Critical
Response Team will investigate the circumstances. The Agency may join in the
investigation and receive copies of all records and documents from the investigation. The
Kitsap County Medical Examiner’s Office will take possession of and handle the
disposition of the remains as required by law, RCW 68.50.160.
15. INDEMNIFICATION
A. Agency Indemnification Obligations. The Agency agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the County, its appointed and elected officials, employees and agents from and
against all liability, loss, cost, damage, and expense, including costs and attorneys’ fees
in the defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits alleging damages sustained
by any person or property including death at any time resulting thereof, arising from or
alleged to have arisen from (i) the Agency’s performance under this Agreement or as a
consequence of any wrongful or negligent acts or omission of the Agency, its appointed
and elected officials, employees, and agents; (ii) wrongful detention of an Incarcerated
Individual as a result of the Agency’s actions; (iii) failure or refusal to timely release an
8
8.15.2024
Incarcerated Individual as a result of the Agency’s actions, and (iv) any liability or
responsibility which arises in whole or part from the existence or effect of the Agency’s
ordinances, policies, rules or regulations.
To the extent the claim, damages, losses, and expenses are caused by intentional acts
of or by the concurrent negligence of the County, its officers, agents, or employees, the
Agency’s indemnification obligation hereunder shall be limited to the Agency’s
proportionate share of liability as agreed to by the parties to this Agreement or determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
B. County Indemnification Obligations. The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the Agency, its appointed and elected officials, employees, and agents from
and against all liability, loss, cost, damage, and expense, including costs and attorneys’
fees in the defense thereof, because of actions, claims or lawsuits alleging damages
sustained by any person or property, including death at any time resulting thereof, arising
from, or alleged to have arisen from (i) County’s performance under this Agreement or as
a consequence of any wrongful or negligent acts or omission of the County, its appointed
and elected officials, employees, and agents; (ii) wrongful detention of an Agency
Prisoner as a result of the County’s actions; and (iii) the County’s failure or refusal to
release an Incarcerated Individual timely.
To the extent the claim, damages, losses, and expenses are caused by intentional acts
of or by the concurrent negligence of the Agency, its officers, agents, or employees, the
County’s indemnification obligation hereunder shall be limited to the County’s
proportionate share of liability as agreed to by the parties to this Agreement or determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
C. Participation in Defense, No Waiver. A party has the right, but not the obligation, to
participate in the defense of any claim, damages, losses, or expenses, and such
participation shall not constitute a waiver of the party’s indemnity obligations under this
Agreement.
16. INSURANCE. Each party shall maintain in good standing during the term of this Agreement
sufficient general liability insurance to protect both parties against claims that arise out of or
are related to this Agreement in such amounts as are prudent and customary for the
jurisdiction. Such insurance shall be placed with responsible insurers, self-insured, or carried
through participation in an insurance pool at levels of coverage adequate to protect the
parties against loss and as ordinarily carried by municipalities engaged in similar operations.
The lack of sufficient insurance shall not limit the liability of the indemnifying party under this
Agreement. Each party shall provide the other with a certification of insurance or self -
insurance upon request.
17. WAIVER OF ARBITRATION RIGHTS. The parties, being familiar with the provisions of RCW
39.34.180(3), expressly waive all rights under RCW 39.34.180(3), now in effect and as
amended, to arbitrate the level of compensation for incarceration services charged under this
Agreement or any renewal thereof, that either party may possess. The parties further agree
that such level of compensation and all other issues related to the purpose of this Agreement
will only be as agreed to herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing executed by the parties.
18. NOTICE. All notices required under this Agreement will be delivered in writing to the Chief of
Corrections or Police Chief. Notice mailed by regular post (including first class) shall be
deemed to have been given on the second business day following the date of mailing if
properly mailed and addressed. Notices sent by certified or registered mail shall be deemed
9
8.15.2024
to have been given on the day next following the date of mailing if properly mailed and
addressed. For all types of mail, the postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service
shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing.
19. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE, FEES. The Agreement will be governed in all respects by the
laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance, without regard to
conflicts of law or choice of law provisions. Any action arising out of or in connection with the
Agreement may be instituted and maintained only in a court of competent jurisdiction in Kitsap
County, Washington, or as provided by RCW 36.01.050. Should any party bring any legal
action, each party in such action shall bear the cost of its attorney’s fees and court costs.
20. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The parties shall comply with all applicable laws, rules,
regulations, and standards pertaining to them in connection with or related to this Agreement.
21. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary,
to the extent any record, including any electronic, audio, paper, or other media, is required to
be kept or indexed as a public record in accordance with the Washington Public Records Act,
chapter 42.56 RCW, each party agrees to maintain all records constituting public records and
to produce or assist the other party in producing such records, within the time frames and
parameters set forth in state law.
22. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY. Each party and its respective employees or agents will act as
independent contractors and continue to be the employees or agents of that party, which will
be solely and exclusively responsible for their employees and agents. Employees and agents
of one party will not be considered for any purpose whatsoever under this Agreement to be
employees or agents of the other party to this Agreement. No party will have the authority to
bind the other party, absent a written agreement of the parties, nor the authority to control
the employees, agents, or contractors of the other party to this Agreement. All employer
rights, duties, and obligations will remain with the employing party.
23. NONDISCRIMINATION. No party shall discriminate against any person based on race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status,
disability, or other circumstances prohibited by federal, state, or local law. Each party shall
comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-354 and Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 in the performance of this Agreement.
24. HEADINGS/CAPTIONS. Headings and captions used are for convenience only and are not
a part of the Agreement. They do not limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof.
25. NO PARTY THE DRAFTER. The Agreement is the product of negotiation between the
parties; no party is deemed the Agreement's drafter.
26. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as giving
any benefits, rights, remedies, or claims to any other person, firm, corporation, or other entity,
including the public or any member thereof, or to authorize anyone other than the County and
the Agency to maintain a suit for breach of contract, personal injuries, property damage, or
any other relief in law or equity in connection with this Agreement.
27. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the terms
and conditions or performance of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to
resolve the differences on an informal basis.
10
8.15.2024
28. NO JOINT VENTURE. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or
manner of partnership, joint venture, or other joint enterprise between the parties.
29. IMPLIED CONTRACT TERMS. Each provision of law and any terms required by law to be
in the Agreement are made a part of the Agreement as if fully stated in it.
30. DISCLAIMER. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed in any manner that would limit a
party’s authority or powers under law.
31. ASSIGNMENT. The rights or obligations under this Agreement and any claims arising
thereunder are not assignable or delegable by any party.
32. NO WAIVER. No waiver of any right under this Agreement shall be effective unless made in
writing by an authorized representative of the party to be bound thereby. Failure to insist
upon full performance on any occasion shall not constitute consent to or waiver of any
continuation of nonperformance or any later nonperformance, nor does the payment of a
billing or continued performance after notice of a deficiency in performance constitutes
acquiescence to it.
33. AMENDMENT. The parties may amend this Agreement as they deem appropriate, provided
any such amendment shall not become effective unless it is written and signed by the parties
with the same formality as this Agreement.
34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all terms and conditions agreed upon by
the parties, except necessary operational agreements. It supersedes any other Agreement
or understanding of the parties relating to the subject matter of this agreement. No other
understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be
deemed to exist or to bind the parties.
35. SURVIVAL. Those provisions of the Agreement that by their sense and purpose should
survive expiration or termination shall survive. Those provisions include the respective
responsibilities of each party, compensation, and indemnification.
36. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. Any term or condition of
this Agreement or application thereof deemed to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, in whole
or in part, shall not affect any other terms or conditions of the Agreement and the parties’
rights and obligations will be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the
particular provision.
37. COUNTERPARTS, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. The Agreement may be executed in
several counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all will constitute the same
agreement. A facsimile, email, or other electronically delivered signatures of the parties shall
be deemed to constitute original signatures and deemed to constitute duplicate originals.
38. AUTHORIZATION. Any authorizations, actions required or permitted to be taken, and any
document required or permitted to be executed under this Agreement will be taken or
executed only by a duly authorized representative of the party. Each party warrants and
represents to the other that the person signing below has been properly authorized and
empowered to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party they sign.
11
8.15.2024
DATED this ____ day of _________, 2024 DATED this ____ day of _________, 2024
CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY
______________________________ ______________________________
TOM WOLFE, Chief of Police JOHN GESE, SHERIFF
DATED this ____ day of _________, 2024
CITY OF BREMERTON
______________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2024.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
__________________________________
KATHERINE T. WALTERS, Chair
__________________________________
CHRISTINE ROLFES, Commissioner
__________________________________
CHARLOTTE GARRIDO, Commissioner
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dana Daniels, Clerk of the Board
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Resolution to approve provision of
Wastewater Utility Services to 1910 SW
Cook Road
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: Public Works
Presenter: Janelle Hitch
Phone: (360) 473-5285
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested wastewater service for a residence at 1910 SW Cook Road. This
property is outside the City limits, City Wastewater Service Area, and Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The request is being made due to the failure of the existing septic system; the condition was
confirmed by the Kitsap Public Health District.
The City has received a letter from the Kitsap Public Health District certifying the failure of the septic
system and the indicates the system cannot be repaired or replaced. The letter indicates that
connection is necessary to protect public health and safety. The action before the Council is to adopt
a Resolution for a Policy Exception for Wastewater service outside the service area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. _____, and Staff Memorandum
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this request.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. _____ to allow 1910 SW Cook Road to receive wastewater service
from the City of Bremerton pursuant to BMC 15.03.040.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
B3
Page 1 of 2
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, authorizing the provision of wastewater
utility services to 1910 SW Cook Road, located outside the City
limits and outside the 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)(2) allows an exception for cases where an
existing septic system serving a 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); and
WHEREAS, at the subject property at 1910 SW Cook Road (tax parcel 332401-4-
096-2005), the Kitsap Public Health District has provided certification that the existing septic
system has failed and is physically incapable of being repaired or replaced in a manner meeting
applicable health standards; and
WHEREAS, the Kitsap Public Health District has indicated that connection to the
wastewater system is necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment;
and
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, the owner of the subject properties has agreed to construct
wastewater infrastructure in and near the property and connect to existing City infrastructure;
and
Page 2 of 2
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works & Utilities finds the proposed
extension of the wastewater utility services necessary; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
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 1910 SW Cook Road (tax parcel 332401-4-096), located
outside the City limits and the Urban Growth Area. A vicinity map of the subject property is
shown as Exhibit A. This service will be provided as the existing system has failed. Service to
this property is provided conditioned upon the owner of the property for which service is
authorized execute an Outside Utility Agreement with the City which grants the City of
Bremerton a limited power of attorney to include owner’s consent to annexation of the property
as part of any notice of intent or petition for annexation presented to the City of Bremerton. This
service is further conditioned on the owner of the property obtaining any necessary permits,
reviews, and approvals from any necessary permitting authorities.
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____.
JENNIFER CHAMBERLIN, 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
To: City Council From: Janelle Hitch, Managing Engineer – Development, of Public Works and Utilities Date: 11/26/2024 Re: 1910 SW Cook Road - Request for Utility Services Outside Bremerton City Limits Request: The Applicant, Ben Shank, has requested City wastewater utility services for a parcel located at 1910 SW Cook Road, the property tax parcel number is: 332401-4-096-2005. The property location is shown in Exhibit 1 Site Map. This property is outside City limits within the jurisdiction of Kitsap County. The property is outside the City of Bremerton wastewater service area and outside of an Urban Growth Area (UGA). 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 15.03.040 (b) (2) Failed Systems. In cases where an existing septic system serving a 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) Kitsap Public Health District Finding: Exhibit 2 is a letter from the Kitsap Public Health District certifying the failure of the septic system and the indicates the system cannot be repaired or
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, UTILITIES & ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM
replaced. Further the letter indicates that connection is necessary to protect public health and safety. As indicated above, this property is outside a UGA and is zoned Rural Residential. Proposed Wastewater Service Extension: For the City to provide wastewater service to the subject parcel the owner will be required to extend the existing sewer collection system. Summary: As demonstrated the attached letter from Kitsap Public Health District the property at 1910 SW Cook Road has a failed septic system and is requesting connection to the City of Bremerton wastewater system. Annexation as currently infeasible as the property is not located within a UGA. 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)(2) – Failed Systems.
October 9, 2024
Janelle Hitch, P.E.
Managing Engineer – Development
Public Works & Utilities
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
RE: DOCUMENTATION OF A PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD FOR
ALLOWING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1910 SW COOK RD, PORT ORCHARD,
WA 98367 TO BE CONNECTED TO SEWER
Dear Janelle:
The purpose of this letter is to document the site conditions at the above referenced
property that the Health District believes meet the criteria set forth in Section B. (1) of
Kitsap County Resolution 090-1998 that allow the properties to connect to sanitary sewer
when located outside an Urban Growth Area boundary. This letter also details how the
property conditions meet the requirements of connecting to sanitary sewer as set forth in
Section 6.H of the Kitsap County Board of Health Ordinance No. 2008A-01, "Onsite Sewage
System and General Sewage Sanitation Regulations".
The Health District has determined that the property listed above meets the criteria set
forth in Section B. (1) of Kitsap County Resolution 090-1998 due to the lack of a suitable
onsite sewage system that is causing both a public and environmental health hazard.
Franklin J. Clark (a state licensed onsite wastewater treatment system designer) has
provided information as to the inability to provide for a replacement septic drainfield on the
lot due to a lack of adequate space and horizontal setback issues. The Health District
concurs with these findings.
The Health District requests that the Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Department and
the Kitsap County Department of Community Development review this documentation as
part of an application and approve a sewer connection for this property. If you have any
questions, or need any additional information, please call me at (360) 728-2225.
Page 2 of 2
kitsappublichealth.org
Respectfully,
Eric Evans, RS
Assistant Division Director
Environmental Health Division
Cc: Scott Diener, Kitsap County Department of Community Development
1Janelle Hitch
From:Scott Diener <SDiener@kitsap.gov>Sent:Thursday, October 10, 2024 10:15 PMTo:Eric Evans; Janelle HitchCc:Kimberly JonesSubject:RE: 1910 SW Cook RD Sewer Letter - Failing Septic SystemAttachments:2024-10-09 15-49.pdf; 1910 SW Cook Rd Sewer Letter.pdfCAUTION: 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. Eric, Janelle: DCD has no objections to the subject property connecting to sanitary sewer, and it meets the documented ‘failed septic’ test by which a rural property may be served and is in the best interest of the public. Please advise if further Qs. Regards, Scott Diener Manager, Planning and Environmental Programs SEPA Responsible Official Kitsap County Department of Community Development 360-536-5452 Your Partner in Building Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable Kitsap County Communities! Kitsap.gov/DCD SIGN UP HERE FOR DCD NEWS UPDATES NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: All incoming and outgoing email messages are public records subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Eric Evans <Eric.Evans@kitsappublichealth.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 4:01 PM To: Janelle Hitch <Janelle.hitch@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Scott Diener <SDiener@kitsap.gov>; Kimberly Jones <kimberly.jones@kitsappublichealth.org> Subject: 1910 SW Cook RD Sewer Letter - Failing Septic System [CAUTION: This message originated outside of the Kitsap County mail system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you were expecting this email. If the email looks suspicious, contact the Helpdesk immediately at 360-337-5555, or email at Helpdesk@kitsap.gov] Hello,
2Please find the attached letter requesting that the home serving 1910 SW Cook RD be connected to sewer. Scott, you are cc'd because this is outside the UGA. Thanks! Eric Evans, RS Assistant Division Director, Environmental Health Division (360) 728-2225 Office | (360) 728-2235 Main | (360) 509-2197 Cell eric.evans@kitsappublichealth.org | website | social media
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Resolution to approve provision of
Wastewater Utility Services to 13 properties
on Sherman Heights Road
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: Public Works
Presenter: Janelle Hitch
Phone: (360) 473-5285
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested wastewater service for 13 properties that are outside of the City limits,
but within both the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA) and the City’s Wastewater Service
Area. The applicant has requested the provision of the City wastewater service to his properties and
is proposing to connect 4 existing and 5 new single-family residences and 23 units of apartments in
conformance with Kitsap County zoning. The 13 properties include parcel numbers: 4624-068-004-
0001, 4624-068-016-0007, 4624-068-002-0003, 4624-068-001-0202, 4624-068-001-0103, 4624-068-
001-0301, 282401-4-040-2009, 282401-4-041-2008, 282401-4-044-2005, 282401-4-037-2004,
282401-4-038-2003, 282401-4-042-2007, 282401-4-043-2006.
Pursuant to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040, properties located outside of the City
limits must annex to obtain wastewater services. However, BMC 15.03.040(b) allows the City
Council to approve wastewater service when annexation is infeasible.
Staff have analyzed the subject properties and consider annexation infeasible at this time due to lack
of overall support from the area property owners.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. _____, and Staff Memorandum
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this request.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. _____ to allow the Sherman Heights properties to receive wastewater
service from the City of Bremerton pursuant to BMC 15.03.040.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
B4
Page 1 of 2
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, authorizing the extension of wastewater
utility services to 13 properties on Sherman Heights Road, located
outside the City limits by within the West 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 4624-068-004-0001, 4624-068-016-
0007, 4624-068-002-0003, 4624-068-001-0202, 4624-068-001-0103, 4624-068-001-0301, 282401-4-040-
2009, 282401-4-041-2008, 282401-4-044-2005, 282401-4-037-2004, 282401-4-038-2003, 282401-4-042-
2007, & 282401-4-043-2006), are located within the West 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 West Bremerton Urban Growth Area; NOW THEREFORE,
Page 2 of 2
Resolution Document Reference
Rev. 01/2023
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
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 13 properties on Sherman Heights Road (tax parcels
4624-068-004-0001, 4624-068-016-0007, 4624-068-002-0003, 4624-068-001-0202, 4624-068-001-0103,
4624-068-001-0301, 282401-4-040-2009, 282401-4-041-2008, 282401-4-044-2005, 282401-4-037-2004,
282401-4-038-2003, 282401-4-042-2007, & 282401-4-043-2006), located outside the City limits but
within the West 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 an Outside
Utility Agreement with the City which grants the City of Bremerton a limited power of attorney
to include owner’s consent to annexation of the property as part of any notice of intent or petition
for annexation presented to the City of Bremerton.
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____.
JENNIFER CHAMBERLIN, 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
To: City Council From: Janelle Hitch, Civil Engineer, of Public Works, Utilities and Engineering Date: October 7, 2024 Re: Request for Utility Services Outside the City of Bremerton Limits: W. Sherman Heights Road Request: The Applicant, Thomas & Jean Weaver, have requested City wastewater utility services to potentially service the following 13 tax parcel numbers: City Council’s Decision: Will City Council allow wastewater services to be extended to an area in the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area without requiring annexation? 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 extensions 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 is not feasible.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, UTILITIES & ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 282401-4-043-2006 282401-4-042-2007 282401-4-044-2005 282401-4-038-2003 282401-4-037-2004 282401-4-041-2008 282401-4-040-2009 4624-068-001-0103 4624-068-001-0202 4624-068-002-0003 4624-068-001-0301 4624-068-016-0007 4624-068-004-0001 282401-4-019-2006
Page 2 Department of Community Development (DCD) Analysis of Annexation: Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 15.03.040 when an owner of a property located outside the City limits request extension of utility service, the City Council may provide wastewater utility services to those properties if annexation is not feasible. To the left is an image illustrating the applicant properties (yellow), Outside Utility Agreements (green), and the Annexation Study Area (pink). Must be contiguous to the City. Per State Law and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, the City may annex property if it is contiguous to City of Bremerton limits. As the subject property is not contiguous to the City limits, the City could not annex just this property. To make annexation possible, more property would need to be included into the annexation area to make this area contiguous to the City of Bremerton limits. Must have properties in support of annexation. When reviewing a larger possible annexation area (as shown in the purple marks in the picture above), 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 for annexation. This proposed annexation area does not have the required 60% of the total assessed property value as illustrated here: Therefore, as currently proposed, if the City received a Petition to Annex from the property owner, this request may not be successful as the City does not currently have the support of 60% of the total assessed property values. With the Study Area Total Area 201.5 acres Number of Parcels 359 Total Assessed Property Value $118,867,330 Applicant Property Total Area 6.48 acres Number of Parcels 14 Total Assessed Property Value $1,627,680 Outside Utility Agreements (OUAs) Total Area 56.4 acres Number of Parcels 83 Total Assessed Property Value $67,130,960
Page 3 requester petitioning the City to annex, the City would have 57.8% of the total assessed property values in the area proposed to be annexed. Public Work’s Recommendation. As demonstrated in the DCD’s Annexation Analysis, additional properties are needed to support annexation of this area. To require a property owner to gather the support of their neighboring properties of over $2.5 million is an onerous request. As such, City Staff finds that annexation at this time is not feasible and recommends that City Council allow an extension of wastewater utility services to the applicants’ property.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Alternative Transportation Program Grant
Agreement with the WA State Transportation
Improvement Board for the Warren Avenue
Sidewalk Gap Project
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: PW & Utilities
Presenter: Chris Dimmitt
Phone: (360) 473-2307
SUMMARY: The City has been offered an Alternative Transportation Program Grant from the
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to partially fund sidewalk gap
improvements on Warren Avenue from Burwell Street to 4th Street. The project provides funding for
City crews to install approximately 200 linear feet of sidewalk. The project cost is estimated at
$57,000. The TIB grant award will pay for 76% of eligible project costs with a maximum grant of
$43,320. The City match amount is $13,680. Acceptance of the grant requires execution of the
Grant Agreement and completion of the Project Funding Status Form.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Grant Agreement; 2) Project Funding Status Form; 3) Site Map;
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This project cost is included in the Capital
Improvement Program, budgeted in the Sidewalk Program.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Grant Agreement with the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
for the Warren Avenue Sidewalk Gap Project and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the
agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
B5
City of Bremerton
P-W-152(P03)-1
Warren Ave Sidewalk
Burwell St to 4th St
STATE OF WASHINGTON
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD
AND
City of Bremerton
AGREEMENT
THIS GRANT AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) for the Warren Ave Sidewalk, Burwell St
to 4th St (hereinafter “Project”) is entered into by the WASHINGTON STATE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD (hereinafter “TIB”) and City of Bremerton, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter “RECIPIENT”).
1.0 PURPOSE
For the project specified above, TIB shall pay 76.0000 percent of approved eligible project costs
up to the amount of $43,320, pursuant to terms contained in the RECIPIENT’S Grant
Application, supporting documentation, chapter 47.26 RCW and/or chapter 47.04 RCW, title 479
WAC, and the terms and conditions listed below.
2.0 SCOPE AND BUDGET
The Project Scope and Budget are initially described in RECIPIENT’s Grant Application and
incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Scope and Budget will be further developed and
refined, but not substantially altered during the Design, Bid Authorization and Construction
Phases. Any material alterations to the original Project Scope or Budget as initially described in
the Grant Application must be authorized by TIB in advance by written amendment.
3.0 PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
TIB requires RECIPIENT to make reasonable progress and submit timely Project
documentation as applicable throughout the Project. Upon RECIPIENT’s submission of each
Project document to TIB, the terms contained in the document will be incorporated by reference
into the Agreement. Required documents include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Project Funding Status Form
b) Bid Authorization Form with plans and engineers estimate
c) Award Updated Cost Estimate
d) Bid Tabulations
e) Contract Completion Updated Cost Estimate with final summary of quantities
f) Project Accounting History
4.0 BILLING AND PAYMENT
The local agency shall submit progress billings as project costs are incurred to enable TIB to
maintain accurate budgeting and fund management. Payment requests may be submitted as
often as the RECIPIENT deems necessary, but shall be submitted at least quarterly if billable
amounts are greater than $50,000. If progress billings are not submitted, large payments may
be delayed or scheduled in a payment plan.
5.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by TIB and shall continue through closeout of
the grant or until terminated as provided herein, but shall not exceed 10 years unless amended
by the Parties.
6.0 AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments shall
not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the
Parties.
7.0 ASSIGNMENT
The RECIPIENT shall not assign or transfer its rights, benefits, or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of TIB. The RECIPIENT is deemed to consent to
assignment of this Agreement by TIB to a successor entity. Such consent shall not constitute a
waiver of the RECIPIENT’s other rights under this Agreement.
8.0 GOVERNANCE & VENUE
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of
Washington and venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for
Thurston County.
9.0 DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
9.1 NON-COMPLIANCE
a) In the event TIB determines, in its sole discretion, the RECIPIENT has failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, TIB shall notify the RECIPIENT,
in writing, of the non-compliance.
b) In response to the notice, RECIPIENT shall provide a written response within 10
business days of receipt of TIB’s notice of non-compliance, which should include either a
detailed plan to correct the non-compliance, a request to amend the Project, or a denial
accompanied by supporting details.
c) TIB will provide 30 days for RECIPIENT to make reasonable progress toward
compliance pursuant to its plan to correct or implement its amendment to the Project.
d) Should RECIPIENT dispute non-compliance, TIB will investigate the dispute and
may withhold further payments or prohibit the RECIPIENT from incurring additional
reimbursable costs during the investigation.
9.2 DEFAULT
RECIPIENT may be considered in default if TIB determines, in its sole discretion, that:
a) RECIPIENT is not making reasonable progress toward correction and
compliance.
b) TIB denies the RECIPIENT’s request to amend the Project.
c) After investigation TIB confirms RECIPIENT’S non-compliance.
TIB reserves the right to order RECIPIENT to immediately stop work on the Project and
TIB may stop Project payments until the requested corrections have been made or the
Agreement has been terminated.
9.3 TERMINATION
a) In the event of default by the RECIPIENT as determined pursuant to Section 9.2,
TIB shall serve RECIPIENT with a written notice of termination of this Agreement, which
shall be served in person, by email or by certified letter. Upon service of notice of
termination, the RECIPIENT shall immediately stop work and/or take such action as may
be directed by TIB.
b) In the event of default and/or termination by either PARTY, the RECIPIENT may
be liable for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, repayment of
grant funds.
c) The rights and remedies of TIB provided in the AGREEMENT are not exclusive
and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
9.4 TERMINATION FOR NECESSITY
TIB may, with ten (10) days written notice, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part,
because funds are no longer available for the purpose of meeting TIB’s obligations. If
this Agreement is so terminated, TIB shall be liable only for payment required under this
Agreement for performance rendered or costs incurred prior to the effective date of
termination.
10.0 USE OF TIB GRANT FUNDS
TIB grant funds come from Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue and other revenue sources. Any
use of these funds for anything other than highway or roadway system improvements is
prohibited and shall subject the RECIPIENT to the terms, conditions and remedies set forth in
Section 9. If Right of Way is purchased using TIB funds, and some or all of the Right of Way is
subsequently sold, proceeds from the sale must be deposited into the RECIPIENT’s motor
vehicle fund and used for a motor vehicle purpose.
11.0 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN TIB GRANT FUNDS
At Bid Award and Contract Completion, RECIPIENT may request an increase in the maximum
payable TIB funds for the specific project. Requests must be made in writing and will be
considered by TIB and awarded at the sole discretion of TIB. All increase requests must be
made pursuant to WAC 479-05-202 and/or WAC 479-01-060 and/or WAC 479-10-575. If an
increase is denied, the recipient shall be liable for all costs incurred in excess of the maximum
amount payable by TIB. In the event that final costs related to the specific project are less than
the initial grant award, TIB funds will be decreased and/or refunded to TIB in a manner that
maintains the intended ratio between TIB funds and total project costs, as described in Section
1.0 of this Agreement.
12.0 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY
The RECIPIENT shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the
employees of the RECIPIENT or any of its contractors, subcontractors, and employees thereof
shall not in any manner be deemed employees of TIB.
13.0 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
The PARTIES agree to the following:
Each of the PARTIES, shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the other PARTY, its
officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within the scope of their employment as
such, from any and all costs, claims, judgment, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in
any way resulting from, that PARTY’s own negligent acts or omissions which may arise in
connection with its performance under this Agreement. No PARTY will be required to
indemnify, defend, or save harmless the other PARTY if the claim, suit, or action for injuries,
death, or damages is caused by the sole negligence of the other PARTY. Where such claims,
suits, or actions result from the concurrent negligence of the PARTIES, the indemnity provisions
provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of a PARTY’s own negligence.
Each of the PARTIES agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim,
demand and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. For
this purpose, each of the PARTIES, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the
other PARTY only, any immunity that would otherwise be available to it against such claims
under the Industrial Insurance provision of Title 51 RCW. In any action to enforce the provisions
of the Section, the prevailing PARTY shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs incurred from the other PARTY. The obligations of this Section shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
14.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) The PARTIES shall make good faith efforts to quickly and collaboratively resolve any
dispute arising under or in connection with this AGREEMENT. The dispute resolution
process outlined in this Section applies to disputes arising under or in connection with
the terms of this AGREEMENT.
b) Informal Resolution. The PARTIES shall use their best efforts to resolve disputes
promptly and at the lowest organizational level.
c) In the event that the PARTIES are unable to resolve the dispute, the PARTIES shall
submit the matter to non-binding mediation facilitated by a mutually agreed upon
mediator. The PARTIES shall share equally in the cost of the mediator.
d) Each PARTY agrees to compromise to the fullest extent possible in resolving the dispute
in order to avoid delays or additional incurred cost to the Project.
e) The PARTIES agree that they shall have no right to seek relief in a court of law until and
unless the Dispute Resolution process has been exhausted.
15.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the RECIPIENT’S Grant Application, the provisions of chapter
47.26 Revised Code of Washington and/or 47.04 Revised Code of Washington, the provisions
of title 479 Washington Administrative Code, and TIB Policies, constitutes the entire agreement
between the PARTIES and supersedes all previous written or oral agreements between the
PARTIES.
16.0 RECORDS MAINTENANCE
The RECIPIENT shall maintain books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to
this Agreement and performance of the services described herein, including but not limited to
accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect
costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall retain
such records for a period of six years following the date of final payment. At no additional cost,
these records, including materials generated under the Agreement shall be subject at all
reasonable times to inspection, review or audit by TIB personnel duly authorized by TIB, the
Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, regulation or
agreement.
If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the
records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have
been resolved.
Approved as to Form
Attorney General
By:
Signature on file
Guy Bowman
Assistant Attorney General
Lead Agency Transportation Improvement Board
Chief Executive Officer Date Executive Director Date
Print Name Print Name
Transportation Improvement Board
Project Funding Status Form
TIB Funding Status Report
Agency Name BREMERTON TIB Project Number: P-W-152(P03)-1
Project Name: Warren Ave Sidewalk
Burwell St to 4th St
Verify the information below and revise if necessary.
Email to: Your TIB Engineer
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Target Dates
Construction Approval Contract Bid Award Contract Completion
PROJECT FUNDING PARTNERS
List additional funding partners and amount.
Funding Partners Amount Revised Funding
BREMERTON 13,680
WSDOT 0
Federal Funds 0
TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS 13,680
Signatures are required from two different agency officials. Return the originally signed form to your TIB Engineer.
Mayor or Public Works Director
Signature Date
Printed or Typed Name Title
Financial Officer
Signature Date
Printed or Typed Name Title
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Supplemental Agreement No. 4 with HDR
Engineering, Inc. for the Naval Ave: 1st
Street to 15th Street Pedestrian and Bicycle
Enhancements Project
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: PW & Utilities
Presenter: Vicki Grover
Phone: (360) 473-2317
SUMMARY: In December of 2019, the City executed a contract (#6063) with HDR for the design of
the Naval Ave: 1st Street to 15th Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements Project in the amount
of $614,400. Supplement No. 01 through No. 03 have been executed; extending the contract term to
December 31, 2026, and increasing the contract value to $853,324. This proposed Supplement No.
4 is for the Right Of Way Phase of the project; scope of work is for time and expenses related to Real
Estate Services. These work tasks include but are not limited to, services to support property
acquisition and documentation, extension of time for project management and design services to
incorporate changes from Right of Way acquisition. This Supplement will increase the contract
amount by $1,460,952 (Total $2,314,276) and extend the contract term to December 31, 2030. In
addition, the contract amount for this Supplement also includes escalation costs from 2020 to 2024
for HDR and 3 sub-consultants.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Supplement No. 4 with HDR 2) Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount) No fiscal impacts. This project cost is included in
the Transportation Capital Projects (TransCap) budget.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 4 with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Naval Ave: 1st
Street – 15th Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements Project; and authorize the Mayor to
finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
B6
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
04 HDR Engineering, Inc.
929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1300
Bellevue, WA 98004
(425)-450-6200
315028 (City Contract 6063)
HLP-PB19(006)February 13, 2020 December 31, 2030
Naval Avenue- 1st Street to 15th Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements 2,314,276.71
This scope of work includes time and expenses for Real Estate Services for the Right Of Way Phase. These
activities include but are not limited to services to support property acquisition and documentation, extension
of time for project management and design services to incorporate changes from Right of Way acquisition.
City of Bremerton
HDR Engineering Inc.
2/13/20 315028 (City Contract 6063)
See Exhibit A
12-31-30
See Exhibit B
Paul Ferrier, HDR Engineering Inc.Greg Wheeler, Mayor City of Bremerton
Naval Avenue: 1st St to 15th St Bicycle and
Pedestrian Enhancement Project
City Project No. 315028
Scope for Design and Right-of-Way Services
CONTRACT MODIFICATION #4
(Amendment #9)
September 2024
City of Bremerton
Prepared by:
HDR
929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1300
Bellevue, WA 98004
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 2 of 15
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................................3
Project Description ...........................................................................................................................................3
Major Milestone Schedule ................................................................................................................................3
TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................. 4
TASK 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................. 4
TASK 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 4
TASK 4. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ................................................................................................... 4
TASK 5. DATA COLLECTION / REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ........................................................... 5
TASK 6. SURVEY AND MAPPING ............................................................................................................... 5
TASK 7. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING .................................................................................................... 5
TASK 8. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 5
TASK 9. BASIS OF DESIGN ........................................................................................................................ 5
TASK 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION & PERMITTING ASSISTANCE .............................................. 6
TASK 11. 30% DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 6
TASK 12. FINAL DESIGN - PS&E .................................................................................................................. 6
TASK 13. REAL ESTATE SERVICES ............................................................................................................... 6
TASK 14. DESIGN SERVICES DURING ROW PHASE .................................................................................... 15
TASK 15. MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND ................................................................................................. 15
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 3 of 15
INTRODUCTION
During the term of this PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT), HDR Engineering, Inc.
(CONSULTANT) shall perform professional services for the City of Bremerton (CITY) in connection with the
following project: Naval Avenue: 1st St to 15th St Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Project (PROJECT).
Contract Modification #4 keeps intact the overall terms of the original agreement and the previously
executed amendments.
Scope of Work
This Contract Modification #4 scope of work includes time and expenses for the Right-of-Way (ROW) phase of
the project. The additional scope of work includes project management efforts extending the project
timeline, services for support of ROW acquisition, design services to incorporate design changes from right of
way acquisition and grant support.
Project Description
The PROJECT rebalances the existing roadway section to remove barriers to non-motorized travel by adjusting
the number and width of vehicular lanes, adding bicycle facilities, and enhancing pedestrian facilities. The
PROJECT will provide ADA improvements to the maximum extent feasible throughout the project limits. As
part of this roadway reconfiguration project, the following will be included, pavement resurfacing, curb and
gutter, signing and striping to support continuous bike facilities, more robust pedestrian facilities, signal
modifications, street lighting, way finding signage, utility relocations, and stormwater improvements. This is a
multimodal improvement project identified in the City’s 2007 Non-motorized Transportation Plan.
Major Milestone Schedule
Contract Modification #3 modifies the schedule as follows:
Notice to Proceed……………………. Complete
Identify the Basis of Design ....... Complete
30% Design ................................. Complete
60% Design and ROW Plan ......... Complete
90% Design ................................. Complete
100% Design ............................... TBD
ROW …………………………………………2024 - 2027
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 4 of 15
Advertisement………………………… TBD (Depending on Funding)
Contract Modification #4 Project Tasks
The CONSULTANT shall manage the work as described within the following major Work Elements:
TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT &
ADMINISTRATION
Task 1 is modified to include additional time for project PM and Accountant to execute the amendment,
update project budget, billings, and invoicing throughout the life of the contract. Also, includes processing
amendments to subconsultants for additional work as part of this amendment.
Assumption(s):
· This scope assumes up to 30 monthly invoices.
· Includes up to 24 biweekly meetings, assuming periods of no activity.
· Attendance of ROW kickoff Meeting
Deliverable(s):
· Up to 30 additional invoices and progress reports.
· Meeting agendas and notes
TASK 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 4. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
No change to this task from original scope
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 5 of 15
TASK 5. DATA COLLECTION / REVIEW OF EXISTING
INFORMATION
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 6. SURVEY AND MAPPING
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 7. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 8. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Task 8 is modified to add scope to perform a traffic signal warrant analysis of the 15th Street signalized
intersection. Signal warrant analysis will follow latest guidance from updated MUTCD.
Assumption(s):
· Effort accounts for collecting new traffic turn movement counts at the 15th Street signal to meet the
latest MUTCD data collection needs for the 1-hour, 4-hour and 8-hour signal warrants. To be
collected and provide by count vendor.
· Analysis will include safety review of latest 5 years of crash data, review of sight distance
requirements for existing and planned intersection configuration.
Deliverable(s):
· Draft and final traffic signal warrant analysis memo with recommendation
TASK 9. BASIS OF DESIGN
No change to this task from original scope
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 6 of 15
TASK 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 11. 30% DESIGN
No change to this task from original scope
TASK 12. FINAL DESIGN - PS&E
Task 12 is modified to cover additional cost for rate escalation from original scoping in 2020 to staff rates in
2024. In addition to added effort for out of ROW impacts and additional complexity of work for realignment
and redesign of the north segment of the project from 11th Street to 15th Street. The alternative that was
selected for the design impacts ROW on both sides of the street adding additional design for sidewalks,
drainage, and driveway reconstruction. For utility coordination this scope adds budget to generate utility
coordination exhibits and more support time to assist with franchise utility coordination and management of
design by utilities.
Assumption(s):
· Removal of trees and replacement of sidewalk and drainage along the west side of Naval Ave fronting
the cemetery property.
· Utility coordination exhibits to account for vertical structures and overhead utility and
communications.
Deliverable(s):
· Up to ten (10) utility coordination exhibits
· Updates for 100% design package per original scope
TASK 13. REAL ESTATE SERVICES
The objective of this task is to provide the necessary effort required by the CONSULTANT to complete the
Real Estate Services management, valuation, negotiation, and acquisition for the CITY for up to eighty-three
(83) parcels. It is anticipated that these services will be completed within a period of thirty (30) months.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 7 of 15
Assumption(s):
· These tasks are based upon the most current WSDOT approved Right-of-Way Plans and Right of Way
Funding Estimate, which identifies eighty-three (83) parcels for acquisition.
· The CONSULTANT shall perform right of way acquisition in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act (URA), WSDOT LAG Manual
guidelines, applicable State and local laws, CITY ROW procedures, WSDOT Right of Way Manual, and
CITY administrative rules.
· CITY shall provide CONSULTANT with available project information such as, but not limited to, the
CITY’s WSDOT approved ROW procedures (approved within the last three years), approved
environmental documentation, and any pre-approved CITY ROW forms, including legal documents, if
available and as needed.
· CONSULTANT and CITY agree to maintain clear lines of communication, determine, and document the
appropriate decision-making process to achieve project goals, and to provide open access to available
data that is pertinent to the project.
· Real Estate Services will acquire up to eighty-three (83) parcels which will consist of permanent
easements (PE) and/or temporary construction easements (TCE) and fee acquisitions of a complete
parcel. Any additional parcels not included will be considered an increased level of effort and will be
renegotiated and adjusted accordingly.
· All deliverables will be produced in accordance with the approved quality control/quality assurance
(QC/QA) process established by the CITY and the CONSULTANT team.
· All deliverables prepared by CONSULTANT shall be provided to the CITY – one (1) electronic version
and one (1) hard copy.
PRE-ACQUISITION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT shall order title reports and obtain any right of entry agreements needed for the project
described as follows:
· Order title reports and circulate title reports to the project team.
· Acquire right of entry agreements (ROE), with ROE requests being mailed out and a maximum of two
(2) additional contacts being made for each parcel.
CITY Responsibilities:
· Review and approve title reports and pay title report invoice.
· Review and approve ROE agreement and cover letter.
· Identify and authorize any parcels needing right of entry agreements.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 8 of 15
· CITY and CONSULTANT will reassess any ROE negotiations that are unsuccessful after three attempts
to determine if modifications to scope and budget are required.
Assumption(s):
· CONSULTANT shall order a maximum of eighty-three (83) title reports with one copy of each title
report and any supporting documentation (e.g., copies of covenants affecting legal description,
deeds, etc.) supplied to CONSULTANT.
· CONSULTANT shall prepare all necessary documents and make a maximum of three landowner
contacts for any right of entry agreement request.
· There will be a maximum of two (2) right of entry agreement requests.
Deliverables:
· Title Reports
· Right of Entry Documents and Signed Agreements
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE REAL ESTATE SERVICES RIGHT- OF-WAY (ROW) PROCESS
CONSULTANT will provide management, administration, coordination, direction, and guidance for the
following ROW tasks:
· Prepare for and attend ROW kickoff meeting and monthly project update meetings with the CITY.
· Prepare and provide an updated landowner list, preliminary ROW cost estimate (RFE), and ROW
schedule.
· Prepare and provide monthly ROW project status report to include acquisition milestones upon
commencement of the valuation process.
· Manage CONSULTANT staff to provide the most expeditious schedule for the delivery of the ROW
portion of the project.
· Manage CONSULTANT’s ROW subconsultants, including complying with and entering payments to
DBEs into WSDOT’s DMCS system.
· Provide 5 days notice to CITY staff when DBE subconsultants are scheduled to perform work for the
purpose of performing CUF reviews.
· Provide QA/QC services.
CITY Responsibilities:
· Attend ROW kickoff meeting and monthly project update meetings with the CONSULTANT.
· Review and approve landowner contact list, RFE, and ROW schedule.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 9 of 15
· Review monthly status reports and provide comments as needed.
Assumption(s):
· Up to two (2) CONSULTANT RES staff will attend the ROW kickoff meeting. Staff commitment is
estimated at two (2) hours per staff for preparation and participation.
· Up to one (1) CONSULTANT staff will attend up to twelve (12) recurring monthly client meetings to be
held virtually. Staff time commitment is estimated at two (2) hours per staff, per meeting, for
preparation, participation in the meeting, and meeting notes.
· Up to two (2) CONSULTANT RES staff will attend up to twelve (12) recurring monthly internal
meetings. Staff time commitment is estimated at one (1) hour per staff and per meeting for
preparation, participation in the meeting, and notes.
· All meetings with the CITY are anticipated to be held online by virtual capacity. If any meetings are
held in person, the increased level of effort will be renegotiated and adjusted accordingly.
· Update to ROW cost estimate (RFE).
· Up to one (1) ROW schedule and up to one (1) update will be prepared.
Deliverables:
· One (1) Landowner Contact List
· One (1) RFE and up to one (1) update
· One (1) ROW Schedule and up to one (1) update
· Up to twelve (12) Monthly ROW Project Status Reports Up to twelve (12) Monthly ROW Project
Status Reports
VALUATION PROCESS (AOS, APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW, EXHIBITS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS)
CONSULTANT will manage the valuation process for up to eighty-three (83) parcels. As part of the valuation
process, Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) reports, full appraisal reports, and review appraisal reports will
be prepared. CONSULTANT shall meet all requirements set forth in 49 CFR 24.103. CONSULTANT will perform
the following tasks:
· Prepare a schedule for delivery of AOS reports, appraisal, and review reports.
· Assemble all needed valuation data, exhibit and scope for each AOS assigned.
· Send out landowner contact letters to all affected parcels in advance of the valuation, if needed.
· Manage the delivery of up to seventy-eight (78) AOS reports.
· Manage the delivery of up to five (5) Appraisal report and five (5) Appraisal Review.
· Develop up to eighty-three (83) parcel exhibits and legal descriptions.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 10 of 15
CITY Responsibilities:
· Review and approve valuation (AOS) schedule.
· Review and approve by signature all AOS reports.
· Review and approve parcel exhibits and legal descriptions
Assumption(s):
· CITY shall provide all information to CONSULTANT that is required to complete the assigned
appraisals, typically information from City permitting department.
· It is anticipated there will be a total of up to seventy-eight (78) parcel AOS reports. Five (5) Appraisal
report and five (5) Appraisal Review report. Appraisal Review report.
· Valuations for AOS’s will be based on comparable properties of the same type, size, use and
configuration.
· If it is determined that the value of any parcel is more than $35,000, or the valuation is determined to
be complex in nature, or an appraisal is necessary, the cost for the appraisal, appraisal review and
level of effort for those parcels will be renegotiated and adjusted accordingly. This will result in
additional costs to the CITY.
· For the appraisals that are needed, the following applies:
o All valuation services will be performed by a certified independent appraiser.
o Appraisals will be before and after short form narrative appraisal reports.
o NTP for the appraiser will be the date of receipt of sufficient right of way plans or exhibits;
title information; and landowner contact information.
o The estimated delivery schedule for the appraisal reports and AOS documents is within ten
(10) weeks from the date of NTP.
o NTP for the review appraiser will be upon delivery of the appraisal report. Estimated delivery
time is 30 days from NTP.
Deliverables:
· Valuation schedule.
· Draft and Final Administrative Offer Summary Reports.
· Landowner contact letters, if applicable.
· Appraisal Reports.
· Appraisal Reviews.
· Up to eighty-three (83) parcel exhibits and legal descriptions
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 11 of 15
ACQUISITION AND NEGOTIATION SERVICES
CONSULTANT will prepare offer packages, present offers, and negotiate purchases, prepare administrative
settlement memos, prepare executed documents for CITY approval and processing for a maximum of eighty-
three (83) acquisition parcels. All files will be transmitted to the CITY with all original documents at the
completion of negotiations. Services include:
· Prepare and maintain electronic and hard copy parcel files.
· Review title reports (limited to the last deed of record for up to eighty-three (83) parcels).
· Review ROW plans, exhibits and legal descriptions for up to eighty-three (83) parcels.
· Prepare and provide all documents required for the assigned parcels including Offer Letters,
Easements, W-9s, Real Property Vouchers, Real Estate Tax Affidavits, Escrow Agreements (if
applicable), and Negotiator Diaries.
· Make corrections based on WSDOT spot check comments of AOS offer packets
· Act as the agent of the CITY in negotiations.
· Make a maximum of four (4) good faith contact attempts with each of the impacted landowners in an
effort to negotiate a fair settlement.
· Acquire fee acquisition, permanent easements and temporary easements, as approved by the CITY.
· Provide a justification memorandum for settlements above the approved offering price, for approval
by the CITY.
· Provide a condemnation cover memorandum and parcel file, as approved by the CITY.
· Process all landowner payments through the CITY.
· Transmit completed parcel files to the CITY.
CITY Responsibilities:
· Provide CONSULTANT with a copy of WSDOT approved Right-of-Way acquisition procedures dated
within the last 3 years (if available).
· Approve all real estate documents and forms that CONSULTANT will use consistent with CITY
acquisition practice.
· Approve a minimum of one (1) preliminary offer package prior to any offer being made.
· Provide written approval for all administrative settlements agreed to by the City.
· Approve all landowner payments.
· Make prompt payment to the owner or Escrow Company for all approved acquisitions.
· Review and approve all transmitted files prepared by the CONSULTANT.
· Record all necessary documents upon receipt of transmitted files.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 12 of 15
Assumption(s):
· CONSULTANT shall follow the Uniform Relocation Act, WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) manual,
all applicable State and Local laws and CITY administrative rules for R/W acquisition for all real estate
services provided for this project. WSDOT ROW Manual procedures & guidelines.
· CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with available project information such as but not limited to the
CITY’s WSDOT approved R/W procedures, if available.
· The CONSULTANT’s title review responsibilities shall be to identify the correct vesting from the title
report, inputting that information into the appropriate acquisition documents.
· CONSULTANT shall make the initial offer to purchase in person if possible, or by certified mail.
· CONSULTANT shall provide a maximum of four (4) good- faith attempts at negotiations for up to
eighty-three (83) parcels assigned, with those attempts being defined as an in-person visit with
landowner (physical or virtual), a detailed phone conversation, a substantive correspondence or
email exchange.
· If negotiations cannot be concluded within 90 days of the offer date on any given parcel or if an
appraisal is requested by a landowner of any AOS parcel, then the hours to complete those parcels
will be re-negotiated and adjusted accordingly.
· CONSULTANT’S acquisition duties shall be deemed complete if any of the following occur:
o A negotiated settlement approved by the CITY is reached and the necessary closing
documents are executed.
o The offer to purchase is rescinded by the City and the parcel is no longer needed.
o A P&U is secured, and the acquisition file is transmitted to CITY.
o A negotiated settlement cannot be reached after the fourth good faith attempt.
o If an impasse is reached during negotiations, the entire parcel file shall be turned over to the
CITY for further action, including determination to eliminate acquisition of property.
· The CITY agrees to pay all title, closing, escrow or other fees (if applicable).
Deliverables:
o Up to eighty-three (83) Offer packages with executed acquisition documents for closing by
the CITY.
o Up to one (1) QA/QC review of offer packages, including ROW Plans, legal descriptions and
exhibits for up to eighty-three (83) parcels.
o Administrative settlement memorandum (if needed).
o Possession and Use Agreements (if needed).
o Files recommended for condemnation proceedings (if needed).
o Up to eighty-three (83) completed parcel files.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 13 of 15
RELOCATION SERVICES
CONSULTANT following the relocation plan, will prepare and present all relocation notices and benefit letters,
provide relocation services, prepare, and develop an appeals process, administer relocation reviews and
appeals, prepare executed documents for City approval, and process all relocation payments for up to one (1)
Landlord business and three (3) residential relocations and one (1) personal property only (PPO). At the end
of the project all relocation files will be transmitted to the CITY with all the original documents.
· Develop appeals process and provide one staff member for the relocation review panel.
· Prepare all relocation documents per Chapter 12 of the WSDOT ROW Manual.
· Act as the CITY’s relocation agent for all affected parcels.
· Administer relocation reviews and approvals.
· Process all relocation payments.
· Transmit completed files to CITY.
CITY Responsibilities:
· Review and approve the relocation appeals process and provide at least one CITY staff members
to sit on the relocation review panel.
· Approve the format of all documents used.
· Review and authorize all relocation payments in advance.
· Make prompt payment to displacees for all approved relocations.
· Review and approve all transmitted files.
· Provide check copies as proof of payments to displacees.
Assumptions:
· One updated version of the relocation plan and appeals process will be prepared.
· CITY will have sufficient funding to pay for the relocation of any parcel assigned.
· All relocation forms will be approved by the CITY prior to their use.
· There will be a maximum of one (1) Landlord business and three (3) residential relocations.
· There will be a maximum of one (1) Personal Property only (PPO)
· All relocation services will follow the Uniform Relocation Act and WSDOT LAG manual standards.
Deliverables:
· Updated Relocation plan
· Relocation appeals process.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 14 of 15
· Relocation Documents.
· Relocation Services.
· Administer appeals and provide one appeals board member if needed.
· Completed files.
PREPARE RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION PACKAGE
CONSULTANT shall work with the CITY and WSDOT Local Agency Coordinator (LAC) to prepare all files for
certification to the standards of the WSDOT LAG manual and prepare a certification memo for CITY.
· Prepare acquisition files and documents for pre-acquisition review by WSDOT.
· Attend the WSDOT pre-acquisition review meeting.
· Prepare post-acquisition files for certification.
· Prepare Draft Certification Memo.
· Participate in WSDOT LPA certification review.
CITY Responsibilities
· CITY shall supply all WSDOT LAC ROW documentation needed for parcel files to CONSULTANT in
advance of all WSDOT reviews.
· If WSDOT LAC ROW documentation is unavailable, the CITY agrees to facilitate and attend a
coordination meeting with the WSDOT LAC upon completion of NEPA and prior to the start of
acquisition activities.
· Review files prior to pre- and post-acquisition certification WSDOT review.
· Review and approve draft certification memo.
· Transmit final certification memo(s) to WSDOT LAC.
· Participate in WSDOT LPA certification review.
Assumption(s)
· A maximum of eighty-three (83) acquisition files shall be prepared for certification.
· There will be a maximum of one draft certification memo prepared.
· There will be a maximum of one certification review meeting of a maximum of two (2) hours duration
each for pre-acquisition and post-acquisition file review.
Deliverables:
· Up to eighty-three (83) acquisition files prepared for certification.
Naval Avenue B&P Improvements | Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work HDR
Page 15 of 15
· Up to one (1) draft certification memo.
TASK 14. DESIGN SERVICES DURING ROW PHASE
This task will be utilized to provide known and unknown design tasks as they present themselves during ROW
phase negotiations. This work will include but not limited to structural design of retaining walls, modification
to property frontage and property access, landscaping associated with the cemetery frontage, modification to
sidewalk and ramp design if needed. The fee estimate accounts for assumed design, scope and fee will be
provided as task present themselves for approval prior to commencement of work.
CITY Responsibilities
· Provide CONSULTANT with directive approval to complete work under this task.
Assumption(s)
· CONSULTANT and CITY will mutually agree to timeline durations and budget for work completed
under this task order prior to work beginning.
· To streamline delivery additional work will be requested and approved in writing via email.
· The CONSULTANT to incorporate changes into the final design of the project.
Deliverables:
· To be determined as each project change is enacted.
TASK 15. MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
A Management Reserved Fund (MRF) $70,000, roughly 5%, is to be utilized only for unforeseen added work
that is not included in this AGREEMENT. This amendment adds additional funds to the MRF to account for
these unforeseen items.
The CONSULTANT shall obtain written authorization from the AGENCY prior to doing any work under MRF
through the city’s Management Reserve Authorization form. CONSULTANT compensation for work done
under MRF must be approved by the AGENCY prior to doing the work.
LABOR ESTIMATE, HDR ENGINEERING STAFFCity of Bremerton: Navel Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle EnhancementsAcevedo, Robert CBush, Jaelen AlexanderFrench, Cameron CParenteau, Trevor MichaelRoderick, Andy PPauly, Sarah CElder, Bailie DawnGould, Paul FPfiester, Benjamin AWillis, Lynn KNapiorkowski, Tomasz William (Tom)Barney, Hayley LynnKhinvasara, Saurabh SachinVo, John-Viet TFrankel, Isabelle GraceGurrad, Matthew CTotal Project RoleProject Manager/Traffic LeadEIT SanitaryRoadway / Water EngineerCAD Technician Real Estate ManagerROW Admin RES Agent 1 ROW Specialest ROW Tech RES Agent Sr Traffic Designer Project Accountant Structural EIT Structural Engineer Civil EIT Landscaping LeadLabor HoursTotal Labor DollarsBilling Rate286.40 128.58 187.05 114.87 233.96 134.78 112.95 193.99 121.16 159.05 164.16 120.69 130.36 254.38 130.79 207.281173000000000301080000311 67,506.52$ Project Setup64102,201.16$ Project Mgmt Plan / Quality Mgmt Plan / HASP 4481,628.36$ Coordination and Monitoring 606017,184.00$ Invoicing / Status Reporting / EV / WorkPlan 307210217,281.68$ Subconsultant Management 2420449,287.40$ Project Closeout48122,111.12$ Meetings and prep45307517,812.80$ 84000000000220000026 4,757.12$ 15th Street Signal Warrant Analysis 422264,757.12$ 12344022400000002200001800536 83,248.10$ Civil 12 20180 180 39258,825.20$ Stormwater 2 4022208412,128.50$ Utilities Coordination1232448,689.92$ Traffic 88163,604.48$ 2020-2024 Escalation0-$ 1300007351037 1070 286 1150 10400000005318 792,811.10$ 13.1.1 Project file setup10 110 20032039,755.40$ 13.1.2 Title Reports and Title Reviews5 15516022,060.70$ 13.1.3 Right of Entry documents10 10 10 10406,028.50$ 13.2.1 Relocation Plan Update416203,642.96$ 13.3.1 Project reports10 30406,383.00$ 13.3.2 Coordinating and monitoring80 4012024,108.00$ 13.3.3 Attend meeting40 84810,436.64$ 13.3.4 Project closeout and QC10 20021029,295.60$ 13.4.1 Manage delivery of AOS and appraisals10 10 406010,049.40$ 13.5.1 Acquisition and Negotiations - Document Prep10 250 5031045,734.10$ 13.5.2 Acquisition and Negotiations - negotiations500 700 800 7602760413,851.00$ 13.5.3 Acquisition and Negotiations - Agreement processing10 40 40 40 4017023,457.20$ 13.5.4 Agreement processing - File management and Transmittal100 6016020,255.00$ 13.6.1 Relocation Services - Support 160 300 20066099,196.40$ 13.6.2 Relocation Services - PPO60 208010,656.80$ 13.6.3 Relocation Services - File management and Transmittal40 408013,150.80$ 13.7.1 ROW Certification Package - Prepare files for certification by WSDOT40 408014,749.60$ 1480062000000220020080160100830133,605.14$ Ped Ramp design 21880 80 18026,236.46$ Driveway Ramp design 224120 80 22633,492.08$ Structural Wall Design 21216 200 80 31051,000.20$ Landscaping 284100 11422,876.40$ Task Total Hours 219.00 40.00 22.00 102.00 735.00 1037.00 1070.00 286.00 1150.00 1040.00 492.00 108.00 200.00 80.00 340.00 100.00 7021.00Task Total Fee 62,721.60$ 5,143.20$ 4,115.10$ 11,716.74$ 171,960.60$ 139,766.86$ 120,856.50$ 55,481.14$ 139,334.00$ 165,412.00$ 80,766.72$ 13,034.52$ 26,072.00$ 20,350.40$ 44,468.60$ 20,728.00$ 1,081,927.98$ Project Management & AdministrationTraffic AnalysisFinal Design - PS&EReal Estate ServicesDesign Services During ROW Phase c:\pwworking\west01\d3785060\Bremerton Naval Bike Ped Improv_Amendment 4_ESTIMATE.xlsmPrinted 9/24/20242:42 PM
EXPENSESCity of Bremerton: Navel Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle EnhancementsMileage/mile (IRS starting 7/1/22)Copies/Page 11x17 B&WCopies/Page 11x17 ColorCopies/Page 8.5x11 B&WCopies/Page 8.5x11 ColorExpress Mail MiscellaneousTravel Office Expenses Office Expenses Office Expenses Office Expenses Office Expenses MiscellaneousOTHER DIRECT COSTSEach Each Each Each Each Each EachUnit Cost$0.625 $0.090 $0.900 $0.050 $0.450 $25.000 $10.000 $3.70 0.00% 0.00%8Quantity 2200000000.00Task Total$137.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $137.50 $0.00$137.5012Quantity 2200000000.00Task Total$137.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $137.50 $0.00$137.5013Quantity 5000 1000 700 12000 2000 80 80 0.00Task Total$3,125.00 $90.00 $630.00 $600.00 $900.00 $2,000.00 $800.00$0.00 $0.00 $8,145.00 $0.00$8,145.0014Quantity0.00Task Total$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00Total ODC 3,400.00$ 90.00$ 630.00$ 600.00$ 900.00$ 2,000.00$ 800.00$ -$ -$ 8,420.00$ -$ 8,420.00$ Real Estate ServicesDesign Services During ROW Phase ContingencyTech FeesTotal ODCODC MarkupTotal ODC + MarkupFinal Design - PS&ETraffic Analysisc:\pwworking\west01\d3785060\Bremerton Naval Bike Ped Improv_Amendment 4_ESTIMATE.xlsm
SUBCONSULTANTSCity of Bremerton: Navel Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle EnhancementsLingeman Valuation Duncan Appraisal DR Surveying PH Consulting IdaxSUBCONSULTANTS0.00%1Task Total$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.008Task Total$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,450.00$1,450.00 $0.00$1,450.0012Task Total$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,982.70 $0.00$21,982.70 $0.00$21,982.7013Task Total$119,400.00 $7,500.00 $46,620.00 $0.00 $0.00$173,520.00 $0.00$173,520.0014Task Total$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00Total Subconsultants 119,400.00$ 7,500.00$ 46,620.00$ 21,982.70$ 1,450.00$ 196,952.70$ -$ 196,952.70$ Traffic AnalysisFinal Design - PS&EReal Estate ServicesDesign Services During ROW Phase Total SubconsultantsSub MarkupTotal Subconsultants + MarkupProject Management & Administrationc:\pwworking\west01\d3785060\Bremerton Naval Bike Ped Improv_Amendment 4_ESTIMATE.xlsm
FEE ESTIMATECity of Bremerton: Navel Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle EnhancementsTask # Task DescriptionTotal LaborTotal ExpensesTotal SubconsultantsTotal For ProposalTotal For Proposal1 Project Management & Administration$67,507 $0 $0$67,5078 Traffic Analysis$4,757 $138 $1,450$6,34512 Final Design - PS&E$83,248 $138 $21,983$105,36913 Real Estate Services$792,811 $8,145 $173,520$974,47614 Design Services During ROW Phase $133,605 $0 $0$133,605$1,081,928 $8,421 $196,953 $1,287,302 $070,000.00$ -$ 103,649.75$ -$ $1,460,952 -$ Management Reserve Fund2020-2024 Escalation - Task 12c:\pwworking\west01\d3785060\Bremerton Naval Bike Ped Improv_Amendment 4_ESTIMATE.xlsmPage 1
Naval Ave
Council Study Session
Januar y 8, 2025
1st to 15th Bicycle & Ped Enhancement Project
Vicki Grover, P.E. –PW&U Engineering Division –City Project Manager
Robert Acevedo, P.E., PTOE –HDR –Design Project Manager
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Discussion Agenda
•Amendment # 4 ROW
•Project Overview
•Project Goals & Objectives
•Public Works Committee Concerns
•Q/A –Open Discussion
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Amendment #4 ROW
This Contract Modification #4 covers time and expenses for the Right-of-Way (ROW) phase, including project
management, ROW acquisition support, design adjustments from ROW changes, and grant support.
Tasks Include:
•Pre-Acquisition and Data Management: Title reports, ROE agreements, and initial data collection.
•Management and Administration of ROW Process: Coordination, reporting, and QA/QC of ROW tasks.
•Valuation Process: AOS, appraisals, and parcel documentation for up to 83 parcels.
•Acquisition and Negotiation Services: Offer preparation, negotiations, and parcel acquisitions.
•Relocation Services: Relocation planning, execution, and appeals for affected parties.
•Right-of-Way Certification: Certification file preparation and WSDOT compliance.
ROW Needs
Permanent Acquisition (FEE) –39 Parcels 224,709 S.F.
Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) –79 Parcels 26,333 S.F.
Total of 83 unique parcels
Contract Cost
$1,460,952
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Promote safety and accessibility for all users through
repurposing excessive vehicle capacity
•Re-channelize to 3
lane cross section
•Widen Sidewalks
•Improve ADA
access
•Add enhanced
pedestrian
crossings
•Add bicycle
facilities
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The project repurposes excess vehicle capacity to enhance mobility, safety, and accessibility
along Naval Avenue, a key route connecting residential neighborhoods, schools, and community
destinations. The project upgrades infrastructure to support all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, and drivers, while improving overall traffic flow and ensuring ADA compliance.
•Reduce Vehicle Speeds
•Enhance safety for pedestrians
•Provide safe cycling facility
•Connecting networks
•Maintain Access for all
NACTO -Urban Bikeway Design Guide
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
MILESTONES TO DATE
•WSDOT Bike Ped Grant 2018
•Start Design Q1 2020
•1st Virtual Online Open House –6-26-2020 –online survey
open and open house website (June 26th –July 10th)
•SAG Meeting 1 –10-5-2020
•SAG Meeting 2 –11-5-2021
•PSRC Grant Application (Not selected) –December 2021
•2nd Online Open House and Webinar –10-10-2022
•PSRC Grant Attempt 2 –July 2023
•PSRC Grant for ROW Awarded -November 2023
•SEPA Approval 12/15/2023
•NEPA Approval 03/25/2024
•WSDOT ROW Approval 04/30/2024
Estimated Schedule
•ROW Acquisition 2025 -2026
•Go to Ad –12/2026 2027
•Construction –2027 2028
Deliverables
•30% Design Submittal –June 2020
•60% Design Submittal –Sept 2021
•90% Design Submittal –April 2024
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
SAG Meeting Feedback / Outcome
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements:
•Wide, ADA-compliant wider sidewalks;; shared-use
path near the Naval Base gate.
•Install RRFBs at key crossings (13th, 8th, 10th, 4th
Streets) and bike boxes at major intersections.
•Buffered or raised bike lanes requested. Balanced
against desire for wider sidewalks.
Burwell Intersection:
•Roundabout: Traffic efficiency but safety
concerns for pedestrians/cyclists and gate
queuing.
•Signal: Preferred for pedestrian and bicycle
safety, less ROW impacts and consistent with
neighborhood character.
School Zone Improvements:
•Wider sidewalks and placemaking at school corners.
•Evaluate one-way street conversions to improve
safety and flow on 8th and 9th .
Gate and Traffic Flow:
•Address vehicle queuing and enhance
bike/pedestrian access at the Naval Base gate.
•Add speed humps for safer pedestrian crossings near
the gate.
General Corridor Upgrades:
•Align with city non-motorized plans and improve
pedestrian safety with raised crosswalks and curb
bulb-outs.
•Ensure efficient traffic management near the base
and schools.
West Sound Cycle Club
Parks
Police
Fire
PW
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
DISCUSSION TOPICS
Topics raised during Public Works Committee meetings
•Consider eliminating right turn pockets and left turn pockets
•Consider “No Right Turn On Red” at intersections
•Consider moving the bike lane to the curb line at the right
turn pockets
•Consider forward compatibility for future protected bike
lanes
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
LOS D -Traffic flow is approaching capacity, with
noticeable delays, reduced speeds, and limited
maneuverability, but still functioning.
LOS E -Traffic flow is unstable, with significant delays
and minimal capacity remaining, nearing gridlock.
Right Turn Pockets
11th St 6th St Burwell St
WSDOT Standard
LOS D or Better
LOS E mitigated
City Standard
LOS E or Better
N
2040 DESIGN YEAR VOLUMES
Proposed Design
No Right Turn Lane
E
E
C
E C
C
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Right Turn Pockets
Burwell St / Naval Ave
SB Approach queue is
anticipated to increase form
175’ to 500’, extending 5th St.
Motorist will take multiple
cycles to clear the intersection
during peak periods.
NB Approach Queue is anticipated to
increase from 675’ to 875’, extending
back through the intersection of
Burwell St. Motorist will take multiple
cycles to clear the intersection during
peak periods and increase congestion
and delays on Burwell St (SR 304).
6th St / Naval AveProposed Design
No Right Turn Lane
SB towards Burwell St Int.
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Right Turn Pockets
11 St / Naval Ave 11 StProposed Design
No Right Turn Lane 9 StRequired to Implement
•Engineering Evaluation
•Stakeholder Updates
•Impacts to operations
•Project schedule / Budget
NB Approach queue is anticipated to increase
from 200’ to 425’, extending nearly to 6th
Street. Motorist will take multiple cycles to
clear the intersection during peak periods.
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
No Right Turn On Red
No Right on Red should be considered when an engineering study finds
that one or more of the following conditions exists:
•Inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching
from the left
•Geometrics or operational characteristics of the
intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts;
•An exclusive pedestrian phase
•An unacceptable number of pedestrian conflicts with
right-turn-on-red maneuvers, especially involving
children, older pedestrians, or persons with disabilities
•More than three right-turn-on-red accidents reported
in a 12-month period for the particular approach
•The skew angle of the intersecting roadways creates
difficulty for drivers to see traffic approaching from
their left
Required to Implement
•Engineering Evaluation
•Impacts to operations
•Project schedule / Budget
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Bike Lane on the Curb
•Bike Lane on the curb of a right turn lane is not allowed per MUTCD, unless
separated and signalized.
Design Requirements
•Space for buffer
•Cost for signal improvements
•Further reduce signal operations
•Time and cost for design change
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Protected Bike Lanes
•Forward compatibility of design to add physical bike protection
Protected Bike Lane Compromises
•Reduce Sidewalk widths
Delineator protected
bicycle lane
5’10.5’
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Questions / Discussion
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
Published for
January 8
Study Session
Item B6
Public Comments
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:56 AM
To: cory.derenburger@gmail.com
Cc: Vicki Grover <Vicki.Grover@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Ned Lever <Ned.Lever@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Shane Weber <Shane.Weber@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Public Works & Utilities Customer Response
<bremerton1@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Gunnar Fridriksson <Gunnar.Fridriksson@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Naval and 6th Street Projects Question
Cory,
Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed email. As you’re probably aware, use of bicycle signal
indications is highly dependent upon several factors including intersection configuration,
vehicle/bike volumes, peak hour turning volumes, and intersection operational requirements, and
studies which would warrant separating bicycle movement from vehicle movements. If you’re
interested, there is some new guidance related to bike signals in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, 11th Edition, Part 4 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/part4.pdf).
To date for the 6th Street project, we have not excluded bike signalization from consideration on the
project, but further evaluation would be required based on identification on a preferred corridor
layout. Additionally, as previously communicated on the project, we are seeking to deliver a
balanced and cost-conscious project which is currently budget constrained. Some project
elements could potentially be evaluated, recommended, and phased-in at a later date under a
separate project. At a minimum we would be making signal timing and detection adjustments
which considers the new on-street bicycle facilities and will also be looking at opportunities to
improve safety for pedestrians.
I appreciate the reference to NACTO’s dedicated intersection especially given its implementation
requires less space than a fully protected intersection – I will ensure this is included along with
other comments and suggestions provided as we work towards a viable preferred project
alternative. If you are not aware, there will be some initial discussion this afternoon at the Public
Works Committee meeting (https://www.bremertonwa.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=3298) related to
multimodal level of service policy. While not directly related to the 6th Street project, any potential
new or updated policies related to multimodal transportation could more clearly inform active
transportation project development including the magnitude and type(s) of improvement. Once
such example of this for bicyclist is defining a methodology for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)
which could be granular enough to differentiate intersection configurations such as the dedicated
intersection presented by NACTO.
Vicki Grover, copied on this email, may follow-up with more specifics related to the Naval project
as well.
Sincerely,
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Cory Derenburger <cory.derenburger@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 9:38 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Naval and 6th Street Projects Question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening,
I had a question about if there are any plans for bike signals in these projects? The
overview on the Naval project seems to allude to this, but I don't see much in the FAQ
about signal improvements on the 6th street project. The 6th Street plan from what I see
only shows the bike signal at Washington (which I do like heading south into the
sharrow). If there are plans for bike signals and detectors, generally what kind?
I will continue to advocate for a protected intersection and 6th and Naval, but even if we
cannot have a protected intersection there due to space or other considerations, can we
employ at a minimum the elements outlined in NACTO
Dedicated Intersections https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-
intersection/dedicated-intersections/
Protected elements are more limited in this intersection design than a protected bike
intersection. It includes elements such as phased bike signaling, set back stop bar for
vehicles, and speed humps.
"Signals: Using a combination of a leading bike signal phase or interval, and setting back
the stop bar for motor vehicles, people on bikes get a head start before cars start turning. A
Leading Bike + Pedestrian Interval (LBI) can be provided if a shared through/turn lane is
next to the bikeway. If a dedicated right or left turn lane is next to the bikeway, protected-
permissive bike signal phasing should be considered.25 Protected signal phases should be
considered if turn volumes from the adjacent lane exceed 120 to 150 vph. Protected signal
phases should also be considered if conflicting left turn volumes (on two-way streets)
across the bikeway exceed 60 to 90 vph, or if these turns cross multiple traffic lanes."
I do not like turn pockets, please keep cyclists separated on the side in our own lane. This
helps with predictability for both motor vehicles and cyclists, and would go a long way to
reducing friction between road users and unsafe mixing at turn pockets.
*as a bonus the curb also gives us a foot rest at intersections, and helps us get moving
faster
If not in the plan, please consider adding bike signals and detectors, in addition to vehicle
setbacks from Dedicated Intersections.
I don't know the vph, but bike signals along 6th and Naval could make things safer for
cyclists, and I think drivers would benefit by knowing what is expected at each
intersection. Let's not make drivers and cyclists on these busy streets guess what the
other will do negotiating a merge or crossing an intersection, let's have the infrastructure
manage these interactions for all users and keep everyone safer.
Thank you,
Cory Derenburger
Bremerton
From: Heather Diane Pugh <pughhd@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2025 9:35 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler
<Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Naval Avenue Project
Hi all,
Bremerton residents, myself included, want safer streets for non-car travel. This desire
is growing and now is the time to shift our focus. As I have expressed before, moving
cars in and out of Bremerton at greater speeds certainly benefits shipyard traffic but it
ignores what residents actually want - a safer place for live and recreate.
For example, I walk the Manette bridge often and the current car traffic priority (the new
roundabout on the west side) means less safety for everyone else moving about the
city. Increased speeds/reduced visibility for drivers entering the roundabout means it
can be challenging to cross the street by foot. Not only that, bike safety has now been
compromised. We can do better! And the Naval Ave project is our opportunity.
Other cities are planning for the future with a focus on public transit, completely
protected bike lanes, narrower roads, more trees, reduced parking lots, and we’ll even
see tolls for inner city driving (NYC would be the first of its kind in the US).
This letter is to ask that we employ creative planning that increases safety and livability
for Bremerton residents. Not only that, but build/rebuild roads for future growth that
encourage (and even force) reduced car travel.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
Heather Pugh
From: dianne iverson <diverson1950@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2025 10:13 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski
<Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.L.Coughlin@gmail.com>; Eric Younger
<eric.younger@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jennifer Chamberlin <Jennifer.Chamberlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>;
Michael Goodnow <Michael.Goodnow@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler
<Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Naval Avenue: Safety for all users makes a more livable city
Photo taken by Dianne Iverson in Victoria, BC in February 2024. Two individuals using
wheelchairs on a protected bike lane in Victoria, British Columbia.
To: Council President Younger and members of the City Council,
Re: Naval Avenue multimodal improvements need to be safer:
In 2019 as a member of the Naval Avenue Stakeholders Committee I proposed protected
bike lanes for Naval Avenue. A couple of weeks ago, I forwarded to you my original concept
that was presented to staff back in 2019 as a member of the committee. At that time, staff
was against protection for cyclists. My proposal for Naval Avenue protected bike lanes was
dismissed by staff. The issue has re-sufaced because more Bremerton families with
children are advocating for safer streets. Protection means a safer street for walkers,
bikers, and individuals who use wheelchairs.
Livability has been a term that has been used to describe your vision for Bremerton. I have
heard the Mayor and the Council publicly state that you all support livability. But what
does it mean to you? What does it mean to those of us who choose to live here? What
does it mean for families, for the elderly, for the disabled?
As a 74 year old resident of Bremerton who walks with a cane, bikes on a recumbent trike,
and uses a wheelchair, I too, am a believer in making Bremerton more livable. We share
that vision. One of the most important infrastructure needs for the most vulnerable in our
population is transportation. How people get from one place to another is an essential part
of livability for many of us.
So what does this have to do with Naval Avenue? Everything. Our city, like all American
cities, has been focused for 70 years on how to move automobiles and freight. Now, it is
time to think about transportation in a different way. How do we move people as well as
cars and freight. We can do both. And it is important that we do both, if we are wanting to
improve livability for all of us who choose to live here. We can no longer just be a place
where we are a highway for commuters.
So what does Naval Avenue need that will improve safety? Build community. Build a more
livable city? Here's a short list that research shows is effective.
1. Protection between active transportation users and cars. Paint is not protection.
2. No right turn on red, which is becoming a standard in many cities already. Cars turning
right at intersections is a safety hazard for walkers, bikers, and people who use
wheelchairs.
3. No mixing zones when possible. Take a bike ride with me on Kitsap Way and you will
experience many mixing zones of cars and bikes. The most dangerous zone is at SR
3/Kitsap Way on-ramp to Silverdale. Mixing zones are dangerous, and I will not cycle Kitsap
Way after the sun goes down. It is just too dangerous.
4. Light signals that give pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals who use wheelchairs
preference to move through an intersection.
5. Narrower crosswalks to protect the most vulnerable. Wider crosswalks that
incorporate turn pockets are more dangerous for our most vulnerable users. That's why on
Kitsap Way a refuge island was built in front of Brother Don's.
Let's raise the standard for safety for all of us as we upgrade our streets
in Bremerton. Let's learn from other communities throughout Puget Sound and across the
nation. Good road design is an essential component to making a city more livable. Let's
learn from each other and start to have a meaningful discussion about how to make our
streets safer. The staff recommendation for Naval Avenue to council is not safe enough.
Let's do it right the first time.Bremerton residents deserve better.
Dianne Iverson
diverson1950@gmail.com
From: Reama Schuldt <reama.schuldt@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 6:46 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Michael Goodnow <Michael.Goodnow@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler
<Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; The Schuldts <theschuldtfamily@gmail.com>; Jane Rebelowski
<Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Happy New Year!
Hi City Council!
I hope your year end comes smoothly and 2025 kicks off without a hitch. I truly
appreciate you giving so much of your time and energy to this city that I love!
I want to thank you for your care on the Naval Ave project. I have been very interested
in the project since the first online meeting to talk about it. I watched the study session
video from last week. Thank you to the council members that continue to get into the
details on this plan.
I am deeply concerned about the removal of street trees, both those on p rivate property
and the ones on public land, like the Naval Elem play field and by the cemetery.
I own a home at 7th and Naval. I consider my family the current stewards of a home
that has seen generations of babies grow and people move through the decad es of their
lives. Built in 1915, the home is iconic and MANY people have said they consider it the
cutest home in the neighborhood. Part of the charm is the 50+ year old cherry tree that
is iconic on that strip of street.
Regarding public land trees, the Naval Elementary play field trees provide sun shade,
habitat for local wildlife (I've seen the cutest raccoon babies up there!), and they mirror
the trees on the opposite side of the field. These trees must be preserved. The other
trees I am concerned about are the ones along the cemetery. Those trees shade the
sidewalk.
I looked through the plan and it is difficult to tell which trees will be altered. If it turns out
these trees will be unharmed, then great. If it is in the plan to "remove and replace"
these trees, as Public Works said at the study session, that is very alarming! There is
NO replacing the gorgeous growth along the cemetery and in the playfield. There is NO
replacing a 50+ year old ornamental cherry tree.
Removing decades-old trees and replacing them (if that actually would ever happen)
defeats the very purpose of the Naval Ave road redesign, which is to make a bicycle
and pedestrian arterial.
The last thing I want to note in this email is that after the 6th Street open house where
PubWorks had two long maps laid out with design and seemed open to feedback, I
hoped this was how things were going to move forward. I heard PubWorks say that the
60% plan has been on the city website since 2022. I've done my very best to stay on top
of this project and be informed on changes happening steps from my door. However, I
do not recall any public comment invited at the 60% stage. Can you please send me a
copy of the 60% plan that they referenced? It's no longer on the website, having
been replaced with the 90% plan.
Also, can you clarify what communication has gone out to residents along Naval
on land acquisition? I'm concerned for my neighbors at 11th and Naval that will be
displaced when their home is removed. I'm concerned for my neighbors at 15th and
Naval that will have their front yard used as a construction parking lot.
Thank you always for your work to serve the residents of Bremerton. It's seen,
appreciated, and so valuable!
Happy holidays!
Reama Schuldt
Home owner in Bremerton
Business owner in Bremerton
P.s. Santatizer? Nice one, Council Member Younger!!
From: Travis Merrigan <bikebremerton@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 1:40 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler
<Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski <janerebelowski@yahoo.com>; Jennifer
Chamberlin <Jennifer.Chamberlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey
<Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Michael Goodnow <Michael.Goodnow@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Eric
Younger <eric.younger@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Naval Ave Project - do not approve $1.46m right-of-way acquisitions
Dear City Council,
I write in regards to the “Naval Avenue 1st to 15th Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements
Project”. Despite some excellent components, the City’s recently released ‘90% Plan’ for Naval
Ave will make the street less safe and cost too much.
I urge Council to delay implementation of the plan - do not rubber stamp the Administration's
request to begin right-of-way acquisitions. Let's slow down, allow the the public and council to
review the plan and improve it.
The Good:
The Naval Project has a couple of excellent elements, including:
-- An end-to-end bike lane from 1st to 15th
-- Safe, narrowed intersections at the small street crossings: 10th, 8th, 5th and 4th
The Bad:
However, the Naval plan falls well short in several critical areas, including
-- Large intersections will be made less safe due to lengthened crosswalks and long turn radii
that increase car turning speeds
-- Bike lanes are unprotected and incorporate turn pockets, which make the bike lanes unsafe
for children and other humans
-- The plan is extraordinarily expensive, with 83 right-of-way acquisitions, wholesale
removal/replacement of all existing sidewalks and power poles and widening of Naval Ave.
-- Lack of transparency. The City held a single public meeting, online, on a week day, and over
2 years ago. Neither the public nor Council has had an opportunity to weigh in on this plan.
The Naval 90% Plan should not be accepted without in-depth deliberation from City Council. On
such an expensive project, it would be prudent to commission a review from an outside
contractor (not our regular HDR or Parametrix) to see where improvements can be made.
-----
I respectfully submit three types of improvement - three principals to consider - applicable to
Naval Ave:
First, focus on safety in intersections - Intersections are where soft humans and big
machines directly cross paths. Most car-on-car and most car-on-human collisions occur in
intersections. According to the US DOT, “roughly one–quarter of traffic fatalities and about one–
half of all traffic injuries in the United States are attributed to intersections.”
The 90% plan for Naval would create (maintain) dangerous intersections with high Level of
Traffic Stress (LTS) at the large intersections: Burwell/Naval, 6th/Naval and 11th/Naval.
Because these intersections incorporate large radius corners, the encourage cars to turn at high
speeds, and design lengthens the crosswalk from the current, not-particularly safe status quo.
And these intersections contain ‘turn pocket’ style bike lanes, which are not safe for school
children. NACTO has great info about safe intersections - https://nacto.org/publication/dont-
give-up-at-the-intersection/protected-intersections/
‘A protected intersection, NACTO publication: https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-
the-intersection/protected-intersections/ ‘
Second, build safe, modern bike infrastructure. Proposed bike lanes will result in a high
LTS, due to lack of protection, high traffic counts, turn pockets, and unsafe intersections. A high
LTS virtually ensures that children won’t ride in the bike lane. Bremerton should never again
build a bike lane that children can’t ride in, especially not for Naval Ave, which passes through
school zones. ‘Paint-only bike lanes’ are not modern bike infrastructure, please don’t fund
unprotected bike lanes.
‘Unprotected bike lanes attract illegally parked cars.’
Third, be cost efficient. Bremerton has many streets in need of safety improvements,
repaving, new sidewalks, etc. We should be as efficiency as possible, spread the improvements
widely. WA State budgets will likely be tighter in the future, and who knows what’s coming out of
DC. No is a time for high efficiency.
The recent Manette Roundabout project cost $8.3m for a project 4-5 blocks long or $1.7-2.1m
per block. The costs were high because 100% of the street was ripped out and replaced. The
Naval 90% Plan is every bit as ambitious as the roundabout and it stretches for 15 blocks. The
plan envisions 37 right-of-way acquisitions (!!), it would tear out virtually every existing sidewalk
and require move dozens of power poles and stormwater drains.
There’s a more efficient way to move forward. Seattle has a program called ‘Even Better Bike
Lanes’ that simply place inexpensive concrete barriers between soft humans and metal
machines. This technique can be complete for tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars
per block, not millions of dollars.
‘Even Better Bike Lane installation in Seattle.’
The City is committed to improvements on 6th and Naval. Great, let’s get them done efficiently.
Then let’s complete projects in the outlying areas, in every council district. Spread the money
widely and wisely. The City’s proposed plans for Naval and 6th Street don’t accomplish those
goals. Let’s do better.
Thanks,
Travis Merrigan
Bremerton
From: Travis Merrigan <bikebremerton@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2025 10:07 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Update BMC 11.12.070 Traffic Impact Mitigation
Happy new year.
I believe Bremerton Municipal Code - 11.12.070 TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION may be
inhibiting the construction of safe streets and requiring the construction of high-throughput
streets. The work need to be done quickly, because Public Works is declaring that it’s already
too late to have any effect on the safety elements of the Naval Ave street project.
Specifically, 11.12.070 states
(a) The City Engineer shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate all impacts of traffic,
circulation and parking resulting from a project… For segments… where the present LOS is
below the standard … the mitigation measure shall be sufficient in the estimation of the City
Engineer to maintain or exceed the present LOS. (full text link here.
In the Dec 17th Public Works Committee discussed their requirements for Level of Service
Naval Ave and 6th Street multimodal projects. On multiple occasions, Public Works officials
including the Director of PW and City Engineer, Ned Lever, stated that municipal code requires
PW to build only for car capacity, they have no responsibility to build safe streets.
In particular, the City Manager stated that he was required to maintain Level of Service - which
only measures rush-hour car backups. Quoting the City Engineer from Dec 17th, in response to
a question about removing turn pockets and making protected bike lanes, “We don’t have a
Level of Traffic Stress Policy, we only have a Level of service policy.” later he said “I think
engineering needs policy and standards that Council adopts. And so when all of these questions
come in about, why aren't [saying] why aren't you doing what Seattle's doing? Like, Bremerton
doesn't have an adopted standard…”
He continued: “I'd really like clarity about what you like when we comes to naval Ave… we need
to justify turn pockets because we're trying to maximize intersection, right?…. You're saying
you'd like to see bike lanes always on the curb line, but that's not our guidance right now, so.”
Public Works lacks guidance. They believe their job is fast rush-hour cars, not safe streets the
other 23 hours per day. does not believe safe streets are in their remit. That needs to change.
Here’s one part of the code that is currently weighted very heavily towards rush hour traffic.
Bremerton Municipal Code - 11.12.070 TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION.
(a) The City Engineer shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate all impacts of traffic,
circulation and parking resulting from a project. For segments, intersections or other portions of
the street system for which a level of service (LOS) standard has been adopted within the
current comprehensive plan of the city, mitigation measures shall be sufficient, in the estimation
of the City Engineer, to assure that such segments, intersections or other portions of the street
system continue to meet or exceed the adopted LOS standards after full project occupancy and
operation. For segments, intersections or other portions of the street system for where the
present LOS is below the standard that has been adopted in the current comprehensive plan,
the mitigation measure shall be sufficient in the estimation of the City Engineer to maintain or
exceed the present LOS. . Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to,
channelization; intersection modifications; signal installation, modification, or replacement;
installation of acceleration/deceleration lanes; turn lanes and medians.
Arguably, the Bremerton Municipal Code 11.10 Complete Streets contradicts the ‘rush-hour
only’ vision of streets. But Public Works doesn’t think so. So the City Council needs to act to
prevent more VERY UNSAFE PROJECTS - such as the Manette Roundabout - from being built.
Some examples of better city code:
But 2023 HB 1181, a major overhaul of the state’s Growth Management Act, replaces mentions
of “level of service” with “multimodal level of service.” It updated and improved RCW
36.70A.020.
… if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned or locally or
regionally operated transportation facility to decline below the standards… unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development
are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include ((increased))
active transportation facility improvements, increased or enhanced public transportation
service, ride-sharing programs,
It continues:
Priority must be given to inclusion of transportation facilities and services providing the
greatest multimodal safety benefit
In other words, LOS must be maintained UNLESS the project improves multimodal level of
service via improved pedestrian, cycling or transit improvements.
City of Bellingham measures not ‘Level of Service’ but ‘Multimodal Level of Service’ in its
Chapter 13.70 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT.
Instead of just measuring how cars flow during the busiest time of day, they look at the capacity
for ‘person trips’. B. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a multimodal transportation
concurrency management program to ensure that adequate multimodal transportation capacity
in the form of “person trips” is available prior to, or concurrent with, final approval of
development permits.
Thank you for working to improve City Code.
Travis Merrigan
Bremerton
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 1:07 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler
<Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: dianne iverson <diverson1950@gmail.com>; Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas
Knuckey <Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Level of Service, 6th St. and Naval Ave.
City Council and Mayor Wheeler,
You're scheduled to get updates on the 6th Street project shortly. Things I hope you
consider for this project and for Naval Avenue:
Level of Service:
You have the ability to choose safety over Level of Service (LOS) on transportation
projects. The Council can vote to ignore arbitrary LOS benchmarks on even a project-
specific basis. City staff was incorrect in telling you the Growth Management Act (GMA)
forces you to meet LOS benchmarks in the Mid-December study session, and should
publicly correct themselves on such an important point.
Councilmember Rebelowski was right to express doubt about this point in the study
session. Bremerton's own 6th Street and 11th Street Study recommends giving 11th Street
a road diet in addition to 6th, in spite of projections showing it would drop our LOS below
current goals. Nick Ataie, one of our city's representatives to the GMA-related Puget Sound
Regional Council, has also said you can vote to ignore LOS. Other cities around Puget
Sound routinely choose safety over LOS, evidenced by the multitude of LOS-constraining
safety projects moving forward in areas of Seattle and Tacoma with significantly heavier
traffic than Bremerton.
6th Street:
There appears to be ample room to fit in a "dedicated intersection" at 6th and Naval to
eliminate the need for kids from Naval Avenue Elementary to snake in between multiple
lanes of traffic in the "turn pockets" designed for both 6th Street and Naval. No-turn-on-red
signs and dedicated intersections can likely eliminate the need for them throughout the
rest of the two projects. In my email chain with planner Nick Ataie, below, I outline
arguments about why there's likely room for a "dedicated intersection" at 6th and Naval,
enabling protected bike lanes to serve both routes.
The new AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Fifth Edition, 2024) also
says "mixing zones," a.k.a. turn pockets, are not a preferred design feature. AASHTO
standards for bike infrastructure are generally less progressive and safety-minded than
NACTO standards, so it's notable if we're not even meeting AASHTO recommendations,
especially for projects serving two elementary schools.
Naval Ave and Public Feedback:
At the Mid-December study session, Public Works argued forcefully that it was
unreasonable to send their design for Naval Avenue back for a redesign. Their design
directly serves Naval Avenue Elementary School and asks those kids to make multiple
correct merging decisions in "turn pockets," and lacks lane protection. They characterized
the community feedback on this as arriving late and coming out of nowhere, which is
blatantly false. Dianne Iverson (copied), the bike community's main representative on the
Complete Streets Committee, has been calling for protected bike lanes on this project
since very early stakeholder feedback opportunities in 2019. The responsible course of
action for Public Works, early in this planning process, would have been to correctly inform
you of your ability to direct them to consider ignoring LOS benchmarks, rather than moving
ahead with such an unsafe design.
Perhaps the upcoming designs for 6th Street and Naval Avenue prioritize safety slightly
better than past iterations, but please do not be squeamish about requiring designs to fully
meet modern standards and the example set by our peer cities on Puget Sound. Please do
not fund either the 6th Street or Naval Avenue projects if they continue to include turn
pockets and fail to include protection for bike lanes. Our peer cities are not paying millions
of dollars for brand new obsolete bike infrastructure - especially on projects serving
elementary schools. Public Works is incorrect in saying LOS benchmarks are tying our
hands and that they were unaware the public might want to protect bike lanes for kids.
Thanks for your consideration,
Erik Pedersen
Bremerton Planning Commission
District 3 Resident
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 11:38:26 AM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Fw: 6th Street Presentation
Nick,
I did a little more follow-up work on an argument for a protected/dedicated intersection based
on NACTO designs at 6th and Naval (and other intersection with "turn pockets" in your design)
I'd like to share with you.
It appears that we might have room for a protected or dedicated intersection at 6th and
Naval. The intersection of Dexter and Thomas in Seattle is the local example of a protected
intersection I'm aware of. Is that the one you referenced yesterday? My Google Earth Pro
mapping program shows it as not significantly wider than the 6th and Naval intersection you
propose to create after the right-of-way acquisitions (based on my rough observations of your
post right-of-way acquisition maps). The version of the Dexter and Thomas intersection shown
in aerial imagery isn't the current protected intersection configuration, but the curb-to-curb
measurements diagonally across the intersection are less than 100' in both directions (I do
realize the curbs have likely moved back in the current configuration).
However, your proposed 6th and Naval (post right-of-way acquisition) appears slightly larger
than this, or at least within just a foot or two in size (more than 100'). Furthermore, the parcels
at all four corners of this intersection include landscaping and/or simple surface parking areas
where slightly larger right-of-way acquisitions would be unlikely to significantly harm the
businesses on those parcels (which should keep costs down per the appraisals you'll do for the
acquisitions). To my layman's eyes, it seems like space is not preventing us from installing a
protected or dedicated intersection for 6th and Naval. Is that mostly correct? And if the
intersection isn't significantly wider, it likely wouldn't cost significantly more than your current
proposal, right?
That might simply leave bus turn radii as a limiting factor. It sure seems like buses make some
awfully tight turns at times (i.e. snaking from the Manette bridge into Manette's business
district). Are these bus turn radii requirements truly requirements, or are they simply
requests/recommendations? And would size constraints put us far out of whack with
recommendations, or would we be pretty close anyway? And might slightly larger right-of-way
acquisitions allow us to meet Kitsap Transit's request for bus turn radii in any case?
Thanks for your consideration and, again, thanks a lot for your time yesterday. I'm trying hard
to educate myself and other cyclists, so our comments can be better informed and more
useful.
Erik
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 4:23 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
Nick,
Thank you so much for your time today.
I found the photos of Eldridge Ave in Bellingham I was hunting for (attached). It's nothing
amazing - just an example of folks fitting plastic bollards in wherever they could, on a street
like 6th with lots of driveways.
Also, in a scenario where we can fit in protected lanes on 6th and Naval Ave, (with or
without removing the center turn lanes), the intersection of 6th and Naval (and others with
turn pockets) could really use NACTO's "Dedicated Intersection." I'd prefer this project
(which serves an elementary school) not occur than move forward with turn pockets. It's a
nonstarter for an all ages route. I think the early BLTS systems WSDOT's was based on
automatically bump a route with turn pockets up to a 3 or 4. Dedicated intersections also
provide extra protection with corner wedges, while taking up less space than a full
"protected intersection."
https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/dedicated-intersections/
This website begins describing the dedicated intersection by saying, "(p)eople on bikes can
be given a dedicated path through the intersection even where there is not enough space
for a full bike setback." It sounds like there might be room to fit something like this in at 6th
and Naval.
Thanks again for your time,
Erik
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:24:34 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
Thanks.
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:22:22 PM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Presentation
Sure – That works for me.
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
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.
My boss now wants to meet with me at noon on Thursday. Would 1:30 work?
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 12:28:12 PM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Presentation
Sounds great – It’s on my calendar. Just call my cell # when you arrive and I’ll let you in from our
main door.
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 12:26 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'd be happy to walk up on Thursday. Your maps and other info would undoubtedly be
helpful.
Noon?
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 11:08:37 AM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Presentation
Erik,
That sounds wonderful! This Thursday would work for me around lunchtime. Otherwise I could be
available after lunch both this Wednesday and Thursday. Let me know what works for you. Happy
to make the journey downstairs or if you wanted to come by my office I could pull some information
up on my compute to share.
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 9:23 AM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
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.
Nick,
I'm really looking forward to that presentation. I would absolutely love and appreciate the
chance to meet up with you though. I'm clearly not a traffic engineer and have a lot to
learn.
I work on the fourth floor of the Norm Dicks Center, and there are always lunch tables
available on the fourth floor, so a brown bag lunch meeting would work for me most days.
(My office also has a whole conference room that's virtually never used.)
Might something like that work for you?
Many thanks,
Erik
360-961-4678
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 8:55:42 AM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Presentation
Erik,
I wanted to let you know that staff will be discussing “Multimodal Level of Service” at the
December 17th Public Works Committee Meeting
(https://www.bremertonwa.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=3298) and the meeting will be hybrid
allowing attendance in-person or virtually. While public comment is not allowed at these meetings,
the information to be discussed is very relevant to many of your questions regarding Bicycle Level
of Traffic Stress (BLTS).
The intent of this discussion is to determine what sort of policy the City could implement to provide
additional clarity on Complete Streets projects (including 6th Street) on how we appropriately
measure/define a “level of service” (or level of stress) for road users and how that “level of service”
translates to physical improvements. We used the WSDOT methodology as a starting point for
BLTS for the 6th Street project, but there are several other methodologies used by other agencies
and we are by no means tied to that.
Regarding your questions below, I’d be happy to discuss in more detail with you, but it would be a
lot of information to try and package in an email. Let me know if there is a way we could coordinate
a phone call or meet in person.
Thanks,
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg
Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski
<Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna
Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Re: 6th Street Presentation
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.
Nick,
Thanks for the quick response. I hit you with a big email just now and we're headed into the
holiday season, so I can wait longer than that if you're willing to dig into BLTS
methodology. That'd be a significant service to the community that's worth waiting for.
Many thanks,
Erik
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 2:07 PM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg
Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski
<Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna
Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Presentation
Erik,
Great seeing you Tuesday! Thank you for taking the time to dig into some of the previous studies,
the WSDOT level of traffic stress methodology, and pass forward some thoughtful
requests/questions.
If you could bear with me on responding (likely next week) it would be much appreciated.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Nick
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 12:36 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Thomas Knuckey
<Thomas.Knuckey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg
Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski
<Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna
Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: 6th Street Presentation
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.
Nick,
Thanks for your presentation on the 6th Street project earlier this week. It seems like a step in
the right direction, especially with regard to your acknowledgement of WSDOT's Bicycle Level
of Traffic Stress (BLTS) evaluation system, which calls for protected or separated bike lanes in
many circumstances. Most of our peer cities on Puget Sound go beyond WSDOT's base goal of
BLTS 1 and 2 outcomes on their scale (only BLTS 1 is truly kid and novice-safe), but educating
the public about this concept is a big step forward.
The presentation brought up five main points in my mind:
1. I saw a BLTS chart shown in the center of the room on Tuesday, but none of the BLTS
evaluation outcomes shown along specific road sections. After digging into WSDOT's
BLTS guide, I wonder if this recent design consistently meets WSDOT's goal of BLTS 1
and 2 outcomes, since it's such a busy street. I looked at the City's 2020 6th Street and
11th Street Corridor Feasibility Study, and they use a different scale to measure traffic
volume than the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) WSDOT's BLTS tables use. Can you
please make public the AADT figures for 6th Street and Public Works' own evaluation of
where their current design falls on WSDOT's BLTS tables?
2. WSDOT's explanation of how to use its BLTS tables also lists other considerations that
might degrade a road's ranking from, say, BLTS 2 to a BLTS 3 (which would then not
meet WSDOT standards), such as significant truck traffic or tons of intersecting roads
and driveways (which 6th Street has both of in abundance). I think WSDOT's BLTS tables
are more of a general guide than a comprehensive ruleset, and they also don't take
center turn lanes (as the recent design for 6th includes) into consideration. I'd argue the
center turn lane should bump 6th Street half-way down from the "1 thru lane per
direction" category to the "2 thru lanes per direction" category. In addition, the original
BLTS rating system, which WSDOT's guide is based on, judges that "turn pockets," which
sandwich cyclists between two lanes of car traffic and require them to make correct
merging decisions, automatically result in a BLTS grade of 3 or 4 and are unacceptable
on main bike network routes. No kid or novice cyclist should ever be asked to make
correct merging decisions or be sandwiched between lanes of cars and trucks. WSDOT
Design Manual M 22-01.23 shows an example of a "Protected Intersection" (p. 1310-45)
that avoids the need for turn pockets and would almost certainly save lives and increase
ridership when paired with protected lanes. Even if our new design for 6th technically
meets WSDOT's guidelines per their BLTS tables, it likely does not meet them in spirit
because of these other considerations.
3. Our evaluation of the 6th Street project should hinge on whether this is Bremerton's
main east-west all-ages-and-abilities route. The answer to this question effects every
other consideration. I argue that 6th Street should our all-ages route, and if we need to
do away with the center turn lane in narrow road sections to provide bike lanes with
ample space and ample protection, we must. The city has Burwell and 11th St. as our
big vehicle-movers, and there's two elementary schools on or near 6th Street (Naval
Ave. and Star of the Sea). Other peer cities of ours around Puget Sound have been
willing to cause a small increase in traffic, or remove a row of parking, on selected
streets in limited circumstances like this. A "neighborhood greenway" on, say,
8th Street could perhaps remove 6th Street's responsibility to serve all-ages-and-
abilities. However, until we see plans for a robust, continuous alternative, most of us
will argue that if the center turn lane on 6th needs to go, it needs to go. There would
still be space for a center turn lane along most of the route, so the extra traffic shouldn't
be bad in relation to the added safety benefits for all road users, including pedestrians
and those in vehicles.
4. For the next design presentation, can we please show the public the option of the mini
"jersey barriers" Seattle is installing nowadays? The public deserves to at least be made
aware of this option, whether we can afford to install them or not. The 2015 Federal
Highway Administration Separated Bike Lane Planning Design Guide shows that
concrete barriers do, in fact, increase protection from crashes (p. 85). That's also
intuitively true to us all.
5. Lastly, if there are any safety measures we're not including in our designs because of
cost alone, can we please make a list of them for future consideration? Budget
decisions are always difficult, but this type of transparency about our options and
decisions would be helpful for everyone engaged in this process.
Many thanks,
Erik Pedersen
Bremerton Planning Commission
District 3 Resident
360-961-4678
From: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 8:00 AM
To: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 6th Street Details
Good morning Erik,
I’m glad you plan on attending the meeting next Tuesday!
I can provide some general information below for your questions, but I want to caveat these by
saying these questions are much better discussed in a conversation Tuesday and I don’t want to
create a situation where information could be taken out of context. I hope you and others can come
to the meeting with a collaborative mindset, ask questions, provide perspectives, and most
importantly provide feedback.
Protected Bike Lanes: We will be including design recommendations for protected bike lanes
(unspecified treatment type) at specific locations. We are using WSDOT methodology for Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) as a basis for evaluating needs and also considering site-specific
factors. WSDOT refers to protected bike lanes as “separated” bike lanes. I can tell you that want
will be presented next week will not depict a fully protected bike lane corridor on 6th Street. The
rationale is likely more than I could get in an email so I would be happy to discuss in more depth at
the meeting. From a City maintenance standpoint, there has been quite the discussion on
considerations/needs for maintenance, but I wouldn’t say that is driving (no pun intended) the
decision-making process at this point.
Road Widening / Right Turn Pockets: One of the primary design goals of this project was to avoid
any roadway widening; I’m happy to say that we will, indeed, present a design concept which
includes no widening of the existing curbs. We will also have an option which shows curb widening
at only one intersection (Naval Ave). Both of these options will include some type of vehicle right-
turn treatment at that intersection to meet our current operations standards. The only other right-
turn lane needed to meet vehicle operation standards is in the WB direction at Warren Ave. Some
other existing right-turn lanes will be shown as removed as they were determined to not be
necessary for meeting operational requirements. Overall, much less potential anticipated bike
lane/turn lane conflict areas than what currently exists on Kitsap Way.
Thanks again for the email and providing some insight into priorities from the bike community; I’ll
see you Tuesday.
Nick
Nick Ataie, P.E., Project Manager - Transportation
City of Bremerton Engineering Division
Direct 360.473.2306 | Cell 564.222.0897
From: Erik Pedersen <erikepedersen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 6:14 PM
To: Nick Ataie <Nick.Ataie@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: 6th Street Details
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.
Nick,
I'm very curious about the details on the 6th Street road diet project. I spent my whole
childhood growing up on 7th Street, so 6th was always the boogeyman between me and
the nearest park. I'll be there on Tuesday.
Do you know if the bike lanes will be protected?
Is there going to be any road widening at intersections? Will the bike lane have to merge
through any right turn lanes into "turn pockets"? Those are the things the bike community
will be looking for.
Thanks,
Erik Pedersen
District 3 Resident
RE: Naval Base Kitsap - Comment to Agenda Item B.6 on January 8, 2025 (Item 6.B on January
15, 2025)
From: Satter, Allison E CIV (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 4:13 PM
To: City Council; Jennifer Chamberlin; Denise Frey; Jeff Coughlin; Jane Rebelowski; Michael Goodnow;
Eric Younger
Cc: Hale, John W CAPT USN NAVB KITSAP SVD WA (USA); Baerg, Alexander T CAPT USN NAVB
KITSAP SVD WA (USA); Herbig, Jennifer D CIV USN NAVSHIPYDIMF PGS WA (USA); Thomas
Knuckey; Gunnar Fridriksson; Shane Weber; Ned Lever
Subject: RE: Naval Base Kitsap - Comment to Agenda Item B.6 and 6.B
Good Afternoon City of Bremerton’s City Council:
We would like to provide comment to the City’s proposal for the 6th Street and Naval Avenue road
projects for the Council’s consideration for the action on January 15) :
Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) commuters and/or visitors to NBK-Bremerton will continue to queue on
City Streets. Near the Naval Gate, it has been typical for queuing vehicles to back up on Naval
Avenue, and at times extend to 6th Street.
It is very typical to have minor issues at the Navy’s entry gate. Those small unavoidable issues
are a contributing factor to queuing. Those minor issues may close a entry gate lane for a few
minutes. At peak time, the Naval Gate may process ~12 cars a minute. A 5-minute delay at the
gate would delay the processing of ~60-cars; 60 cars queuing in one lane is ~1,200’. There is
~1,300’ from Naval Gate to 6th Street.
With the City proposals (6th and Naval Avenue) and the current NBK’s vehicle queuing, we
assume the current queuing distance will likely be increased. Part of our assumption includes that
the vehicles traveling to downtown/Ferry will also be within the NBK-vehicle queue instead of
having a lane open to avoid the line, thus adding to the backup.
The Navy has no funded plans to improve base access to NBK-Bremerton. We continue to have
an incentive program to support mass transportation, Worker/Driver program and van/car-pooling
commuting and we are conducting an analysis on NBK-Bremerton to try to improve traffic flow on
base. Though we are studying on-base traffic patterns, there are no funded plans to improve the
queuing at the NBK-Bremerton gates.
We also have no plans to reduce NBK-Bremerton’s operations currently. Currently, NBK-
Bremerton is studying projects to update the Shipyard, which includes analyzing if this work will
bring extra contractors to the shipyard (and how much). We should know more through the
Environmental Review to be released this year. Also, teleworking is implemented in some areas
on NBK-Bremerton but is always subject to Department of Defense and Federal policies which
are subject to change at any time. As such, we do not have plans to reduce NBK-Bremerton’s
workforce, but future actions may be increasing the population who comes to the base.
It is estimated NBK-Bremerton has approximately 18,000-25,000 people living and working on
base every day; majority of that workforce commutes to NBK-Bremerton. It has been identified
that at peak AM time, approximately 700 vehicles/hour enter at the Naval Avenue Gate.
Ensuring that the workforce can get to the installation to work is essential to maintain current
Navy operations. It is so important that Department of Defense provided funding to the City
($675,000 in 2020) to develop a plan to address the City’s transportation issues and ensure
Bremerton’s growth will not impede on NBK-Bremerton; that resulted in the City’s Joint
Compatibility Transportation Plan (JCTP).
We appreciate the City’s Staffs hard work to try to find solutions that accommodate all stakeholders into
the City’s proposed transportation projects. Navy understands the importance of safe and predictable
transportation routes for all modes of transportation.
I have also included Naval Base Kitsap’s Commanding Officer, Captain Hale, and Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard & Intermediate Facility’s Executive Director, Jennifer Herbig. We are available to help educate
on the Navy if the Council has any questions.
V/r,
Allison Satter
Community Planning & Liaison Officer (CPLO)
Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)
Cell: (360) 930-2934
Email: Allison.e.Satter.civ@us.navy.mil
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: January 8, 2025
Public Work Agreement for Purchase of
Playground Equipment from Landscape
Structures, Inc. for Haddon Park
COUNCIL MEETING Date: January 15, 2025
Department: Parks & Recreation
Presenter: Tim Barker
Phone: (360) 473-5428
SUMMARY:
This project will install a new accessible playground at Haddon Park. The playground equipment was
selected through public feedback conducted at a Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, and the
Commission approved the final design on December 3rd.
The equipment pricing has been competitively solicited and publicly awarded through the Sourcewell
Cooperative Purchasing Agreement. The Total Project Cost: $136,080.45, installation, freight, and
sales tax included.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Public Work Agreement; 2) Landscape Structures, Inc. Quote #2412-12453;
3) Playground Design Drawings; 4) Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The playground equipment ($136,080.45) is
funded through a $132,000 CDBG grant, and the remaining balance will be funded through the
Recreation Conservation Office grant. Funding for this project was approved by the City Council on
7/3/24.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Public Work Agreement for the purchase and installation of playground
equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc. in the amount of $136,080.45, sales tax included, 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
B7
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington
Municipal Corporation (“City”), and Landscape Structures, Inc. (“Contractor”), whose mailing
address is 601-7th Street South, Delano, MN 55328-0198.
The parties agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following
services for the City:
Playground equipment
Layout, mark and dig all holes required for installation of play equipment
Set main post in concrete per the manufacture’s specifications
Supervise play equipment installation and assembly during the Community Build Day
as identified in quotation #2412-12453, attached hereto as Attachment A, which is
incorporated herein.
2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within 90
calendar days from the date of issuance of the City’s Notice to Proceed.
3. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Contractor the total amount of
$136,080.45, which includes Washington State Sales Tax, for the work and services
contemplated in this agreement. The City shall pay the Contractor ninety percent (90%) of the
Contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the work by the City, and the remainder
upon fulfillment of the conditions listed below and throughout this agreement.
A. No Performance Bond. Because this contract including applicable sales
tax is $150,000 or less, and pursuant to Chapter 39.08 RCW, the
Contractor, in lieu of providing the City a performance bond, has elected
to have the City retain the final ten percent (10%) of the Contract amount
for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of final acceptance, or until
receipt of all necessary releases from the State Department of Revenue
and the State Department of Labor & Industries and until settlement of any
liens filed under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later.
B. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold
payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work.
Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and
materials that do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and
extra work and materials furnished without the City’s written approval. If
Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion
of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and
Contractor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
the City. “Additional costs” shall mean all reasonable costs, including
legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum
Contract price specified above. The City further reserves its right to
deduct the cost to complete the Contract work, including any Additional
Costs, from any and all amounts due or to become due the Contractor.
C.. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL
PAYMENT (EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL
PRECLUDE ALL CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND
PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS
UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS
MADE.
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall be at all times
acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Contractor shall
secure at its expense, and shall be responsible for all payments of income tax, social security,
state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll
deductions for the Contractor, officer, agents, employees and sub-contractors. The Contractor
shall also secure all applicable business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract
services, including all required licenses for Contractor's officers, agents, employees and sub-
contractors.
5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreement for good cause.
“Good cause” shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
A. The Contractor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of
properly skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the
Contract work.
B. The Contractor’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in
this agreement.
C. The Contractor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to sub-
contractors or for material or labor.
D. The Contractor’s persistent disregard of federal, state or local laws, rules
or regulations.
E. The Contractor’s filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt.
If the City terminates this agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any
further monies due under this agreement until the Contract work is completed.
6. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall file a “Statement of Intent to Pay
Prevailing Wages” with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to
commencing the Contract work. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
39.12 of the Revised Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate
provisions. Contractor will be required to pay Federal, Davis-Bacon Wage Rates current on
the bid opening date. The Davis-Bacon wage rates are available at the US Department of Labor
website.
7. CHANGES. The City may issue a written work change directive for any change
in the Contract work during the performance of this agreement. If the Contractor determines, for
any reason, that a change order is necessary, Contractor must submit a written change order
request to the City’s project manager within two (2) business days of the date the Contractor
knew or should have known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the
City determines that the change increases or decreases the Contractor’s costs or time for
performance, the City will make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to
reach agreement with the Contractor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are
unable to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The
Contractor shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving a written work change
directive or change order from the City. If the Contractor fails to require a change order within
the time allowed, the Contractor waives its right to make any claim or submit subsequent change
order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the Contractor disagrees with the
equitable adjustment the Contractor must complete the change order work; however, the
Contractor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below:
A. Procedure and Protest by the Contractor. If the Contractor disagrees with
anything required by a work change directive or change order, including
any direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the City, the
Contractor shall:
1. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City;
2. Supplement the written protest within fourteen (14) calendar days
with a written statement that provides the following information:
a. The date of the Contract’s protest.
b. The nature and circumstances that caused the protest.
c. The provisions in this agreement that support the protest.
d. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested work and
how that estimate was determined.
e. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule
change or disruption if the Contractor is asserting a
schedule change or disruption.
The Contractor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time
incurred as a result of the protested work. The City shall have
access to any of the Contractor’s records needed for evaluating the
protest.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
3. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this
section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid,
the City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable
adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest.
B. Contractor’s Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest,
the Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has
ordered.
C. Contractor’s Acceptance of Changes. The Contractor accepts all
requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate
acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A
change order that is accepted by Contractor as provided in this section
shall constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract
time and for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of
delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change.
D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section
provides, the Contractor also waives any additional entitlement and
accepts from the City any written order (including directions, instructions,
interpretations, and determination).
E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the
procedures of this section, the Contractor completely waives any claims
for protested work and accepts form the City any written order (including
directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination).
F. Liens. In the event that there are any liens on file against the City of
Bremerton, the City of Bremerton shall be entitled to withhold final or
progress payments to the extent deemed necessary by the City of
Bremerton to properly protect the outstanding lien claimants until proper
releases have been filed with the City Clerk
8. CLAIMS. The Contractor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other
than change orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise
to the claims. Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time,
whether under this agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived
by the Contractor unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable
provisions of this agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim
is set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the
date Contractor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a
minimum, a Contractor’s written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests
in Section 7.A.2.a.-e.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM
OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY.
Contractor must, in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected
with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is complete.
9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and
materials within one year from the date of the City’s acceptance of the Contract work. When
defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the
date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to
correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the
defect. If the Contractor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City
may complete the corrections and the Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order
to accomplish the correction.
10. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officer, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection
with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the City’s
sole negligence.
The City’s inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor’s work when completed shall
not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and
the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Contractor’s liabili ty hereunder shall
be only to the extent of the Contractor’s negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR’S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE
MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
agreement.
11. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this
agreement insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries
to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work by the Contractor, its agents, representative, employees, sub-consultants or sub-
contractors.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
Before beginning work on the project described in this agreement, the Contractor shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000
combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage;
and
B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis
with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and
property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket
contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage;
explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and
C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and aggregate; and
B. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial
Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of
Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000.
Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of
the Contractor.
The City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be named as an
additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the
Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached
to the Certificate of Insurance.
The Contractor’s insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to
the limits of the insurer’s liability.
The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects
the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any
operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative
obligation upon Consultant to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by
certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk M anagement, 345 6th
Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or
substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed
to be a breach of this Agreement.
The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance
policies. In the event that the Contractor employs other contractors (sub-contractors) as part of
the work covered by this Agreement, it shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to r equire and
confirm that each sub-contractor meets the minimum insurance requirements specified above.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
The Contractor shall, upon demand of the City, deliver to the City copies of such policy or
policies of insurance and the receipts for payment of premiums thereon.
12. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement. In the hiring of employees for
the performance of work under this Agreement, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person
acting on behalf of Contractor shall not discriminate in any employment practice on the basis of
age (40+), sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation/gender identity, marital
status, military status, or the presence of any physical, mental or sensory disability.
B. ADA Statement. The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the
basis of disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to
both employment and admission to participation in the programs, services and activities of the
City of Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment
will be provided.
C. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state
and local laws, rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this
agreement.
D. Work Performed at Contractor’s Risk. Contractor shall take all
precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and
subcontractors in the performance of this agreement. All work shall be done at Contractor’s own
risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other
articles used or held for use in connection with the work.
E. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict
performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein
conferred in one or more instances, shall not be constructed to be a waiver or relinquishment of
those terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect
F. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and
Contractor under any of the provisions of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be
available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court,
Kitsap County, Washington.
G. Attorney’s Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW 39.04.240, in
any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties’ performance of this agreement, each
party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs and attorney’s fees incurred in
defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the
City’s right to indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement.
H. Written Notice. All communications regarding this agreement shall be
sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event
three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be
deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated on this agreement.
I. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without
the written consent of the City shall be void.
J. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the
provisions of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized
representative of the City and Contractor.
K. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of
this agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portion of this agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and
effect.
L. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this agreement,
together with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative
of the City, and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any
manner this agreement. This agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire agreement
between the parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this agreement conflict with any
language contained in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail.
M. Mutually Bound. Contractor and Subcontractor are mutually bound by
the terms of this agreement. Terms of this agreement will apply to the work of any subcontractor.
The Contractor shall assume toward the subcontractor all obligations and responsibilities the
Owner, under this agreement, assumes toward the Contractor, and the Subcontractor shall
assume toward the Contractor all obligations and responsibilities which the Contractor, under
this agreement, assumes towards the Owner.
N. Suspension & Debarment. For contracts involving Washington State and
Federal funding, Contractor 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 State or Federal department or
agency. Contractor shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that
it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Contractor enter into a covered transaction
with another firm, Contractor 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.
O. Solicitation of Minority Business. Per RCW 35.22.650, Contractor agrees
that the contractor shall actively solicit the employment of minority group members. Contractor
further agrees that the contractor shall actively solicit bids for the subcontracting of goods or
services from qualified minority businesses. Contractor shall furnish evidence of the contractor's
compliance with these requirements of minority employment and solicitation. Contractor further
agrees to consider the grant of subcontracts to said minority bidders on the basis of substantially
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
equal proposals in the light most favorable to said minority businesses. The contractor shall be
required to submit evidence of compliance with this section as part of the bid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this agreement.
CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON
Print Name: Print Name:
Title: Title:
DATE DATE
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON:
Attn: John Larson Attn: Tim Barker
Landscape Structures, Inc. City of Bremerton
2104 SW 152nd Street, Ste 1 345 6th Street, Suite 100
Burien, WA. 98166 Bremerton, WA 98337
(360)
(360) (facsimile)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kylie J. Finnell
Bremerton City Attorney
ATTEST:
Angela Hoover, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04 2023.doc
~ 8-12 weeks*see attached
1762711-01-03 $ 106,965.00
INSTALL $ 15,483.00
$ (8,557.20)
Sub Total $ 113,890.80
Freight $ 10,725.00
Tax 9.2%$ 11,464.65
Bond not included
Tax on Bond not included
Total $ 136,080.45
December 16, 2024
SITEWORK/DEMOLITION
Adam Basich 206.932.6366
DESIGN CONCEPT A - R.3 Custom PlayBooster Composite Play Structure, engineered
and manufactured in Delano, MN by Landscape Structures, 100% employee owned
American Made
PLAY EQUIPMENT
Borders for this design are by others, per drawing 1762711-01-03
Not Included in this Scope
Supervised Installation including Equipment delivery offload, all hole
marking and digging, setting of 26 posts, Community Install Direction and
Assistance
Supervised Community Installation Quoted @ Davis Bacon Wages
INSTALLATION
SAFETY SURFACING
Date Lead Time Terms
PlayCreation, Inc. attention: John
Larson 2104 SW 152nd Street,
ste 1 Burien, WA 98166
JohnL@PlayCreation.com
206.940.1108
Landscape Structures, Inc.
attention: Misty Link 601 - 7th
Street South Delano, MN
55328-0198
mistylink@playlsi.com
763.972.5591
Send for processing to:Issue Purchase Order To:
APPROVAL
_______________________________________________
signature
_______________________________________________
date PO#
Lulu D. Haddon Park
Quote / Worksheet #2412-12453
To:
Bremerton Parks and Recreation
680 Lebo Blvd Bremerton, WA 98310 Colette Berna
Park Preservation & Development Manager
Colette.Berna@ci.bremerton.wa.us 360.473.5429
Project Location: Lulu
D. Haddon Park 1525 N
Lafayette Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98312
Concept
A R.3
Sourcewell Contact #010521-LSI City
of Bremerton ID #20107
Quoted By
To Place Order : Sign Approval Line + Color Approval Sheet, then:
Future Surfacing Components must be Quoted @ DAVIS BACON wages per client request.
•50% Deposit Due Upon Order Entry
•Pricing valid for 90 day
•Quote based on current pricing
601 7th STREET SOUTH - P.O. BOX 198PH: 1-800-328-0035 FAX: 1-763-972-6091DELANO, MINNESOTA 55328LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC.THIS PLAY AREA DOES CONFORM TOIT IS THE MANUFACTURERS OPINION THATTHE A.D.A. ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS,ASSUMING AN ACCESSIBLE PROTECTIVESURFACING IS PROVIDED, AS INDICATED, ORWITHIN THE ENTIRE USE ZONE.CHOOSE A PROTECTIVE SURFACING MATERIAL THATHAS A CRITICAL HEIGHT VALUE TO MEET THEMAXIMUM FALL HEIGHT FOR THE EQUIPMENT (REF.ASTM F1487 STANDARD CONSUMER SAFETYPERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR PLAYGROUNDEQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC USE, SECTION 8 CURRENTREVISION). THE SUBSURFACE MUST BE WELLDRAINED. IF THE SOIL DOES NOT DRAIN NATURALLYIT MUST BE TILED OR SLOPED 1/8" TO 1/4" PERFOOT TO A STORM SEWER OR A "FRENCH DRAIN".THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS BASED ONINFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION, DETAILED SITE INFORMATIONINCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS, TOPOGRAPHY EXISTINGUTILITIES, SOIL CONDITIONS, AND DRAINAGESOLUTIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED, EVALUATED, &UTILIZED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. PLEASE VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA, SIZE, ORIENTATION, ANDLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT,AND SITE FURNISHINGS PRIOR TO ORDERING. SLIDES SHOULD NOT FACE THE HOT AFTERNOON SUN.Representing206.940.1108Project ManagerPlayCreation Landscape StructuresDesigned by:ADA Counts include Ireestanding play items.Representing Landscape Structures since Lulu D. Haddon ParkDesign A R.3Bremerton, WAPlayCreation,Inc.Landscape StructuresJohnL@PlayCreation.comPlayBooster1762711-01-03Scale In Feet0'1'5'10'20'years oldyears oldyears oldyears old
Lulu D. Haddon Park
Playground
Public Works Agreement for Purchase of Playground
Equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc.
This project was identified as a high priority in the 6-year Capital Facility
Plan (CFP), included in the 2020 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan.
The original playground equipment was installed in 1998 but had been in
storage for over a decade before being installed.
In 2021, the P&R Dept. applied for a 132k CDBG grant to replace the
outdated playground with an accessible one.
In August 2024, options were evaluated at the P & R Commission meeting.
The design was revised slightly and staff reviewed several color options and
selected one that complements the restroom/shelter colors.
In December 2024, the P&R Commission voted to proceed with the
contract.
The city has previously installed equipment from Landscape Structures at
Warren Ave. Park, Kiwanis Park, and Evergreen Rotary Park.
Haddon Park Playground Purchase –Background
Haddon Park Playground –Adjacent Area
Haddon Park Playground Location
Haddon Park Playground –Preferred Option Plan
Haddon Park Playground –Preferred Option*
Restroom Paint Swatches/Playground Colors
*4th slide substituted w/climber
Lulu D. Haddon Park
Playground
Public Works Agreement for Purchase of Playground
Equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc.
This project was identified as a high priority in the 6-year Capital Facility
Plan (CFP), included in the 2020 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan.
The original playground equipment was installed in 1998 but had been in
storage for over a decade before being installed.
In 2021, the P&R Dept. applied for a 132k CDBG grant to replace the
outdated playground with an accessible one.
In August 2024, options were evaluated at the P & R Commission meeting.
The design was revised slightly and staff reviewed several color options and
selected one that complements the restroom/shelter colors.
In December 2024, the P&R Commission voted to proceed with the
contract.
The city has previously installed equipment from Landscape Structures at
Warren Ave. Park, Kiwanis Park, and Evergreen Rotary Park.
Haddon Park Playground Purchase –Background
Haddon Park Playground –Adjacent Area
Haddon Park Playground Location
Haddon Park Playground –Preferred Option Plan
Haddon Park Playground –Preferred Option*
Restroom Paint Swatches/Playground Colors
*4th slide substituted w/climber
Published for
January 8
Study Session
Item C1
Public Comments
From: isaiah rainer
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:43 AM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Cc: isaiah rainer
Subject: Action on: Homelessness
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Members of Bremerton City Council,
There is a need for the people in our community who cannot afford to live under a safe roof with
adequate food and the bare necessities to live. Therefore I am writing on behalf of myself and others in
the community to change current policies, and let organizations such as the local churches be able to
allow families to sleep in their vehicles in church parking lots.
Moving forward this action will lead to the support of the community and churches to aid in helping
people that are homeless to feel safe. Providing them with programs to aid them in being a productive
part of the community. Action is required immediately to aid these people in the right path.
1. Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process for organizations
seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles will enable more organizations to
participate.
2. Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking
programs in residential and commercial areas were churches and community
organizations are typically located.
3. Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to organizations
willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of insurance,
sanitation, and security.
4. Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local nonprofits,
healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilize safe parking
programs have access to case management, housing resources, and other support systems.
Thank you for your time and for moving forward on this issue,
Isaiah Rainer
From:Joe Roszak
To:City Council
Subject:Safe Parking Policies
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:21:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you today to express my concern about the challenges faced by our
unhoused neighbors and to advocate for a compassionate and pragmatic solution.
Specifically, I urge the City of Bremerton to revise its current policies to make it
easier for local churches and organizations to operate as safe parking programs for
individuals and families who have no other option but to sleep in their vehicles.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing
homelessness, offering a secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-
needed support services. These programs not only address immediate safety
concerns but also serve as a stepping stone toward stability and housing.
Unfortunately, the current regulatory requirements in Bremerton present
unnecessary barriers for churches and organizations willing to offer their spaces for
this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of
safe parking programs in our city:
1. Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval
process for organizations seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing
bureaucratic hurdles will enable more organizations to participate.
2. Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe
parking programs in residential and commercial areas where churches and
community organizations are typically located.
3. Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to
organizations willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the
costs of insurance, sanitation, and security.
4. Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local
nonprofits, healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals
utilizing safe parking programs have access to case management, housing
resources, and other support systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can lead with compassion and pragmatism,
addressing an urgent need in our community while upholding the dignity of our
unhoused residents. Faith-based institutions and community organizations have
long been trusted pillars of support in Bremerton, and they are uniquely positioned
to provide this essential service if empowered to do so.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take swift action to amend the
existing regulations. Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect, and we, as
a community, have a moral obligation to provide solutions that reflect our shared
values of care and inclusion.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I would welcome the opportunity
to discuss this further or provide any additional information that may assist in this
effort.
Sincerely,
Joe Roszak
Retired
Jgr@lunaberry.net
360-535-9565
From:Rob Dent
To:City Council
Subject:Safe Park
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 12:16:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you today to express my deep concern about the challenges faced by our
unhoused neighbors and to advocate for a compassionate and pragmatic solution. Specifically,
I urge the City of Bremerton to revise its current policies to make it easier for local churches
and organizations to operate as safe parking programs for individuals and families who have
no other option but to sleep in their vehicles.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing
homelessness, offering a secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-needed support
services. These programs not only address immediate safety concerns but also serve as a
stepping stone toward stability and housing. Unfortunately, the current regulatory
requirements in Bremerton present unnecessary barriers for churches and organizations willing
to offer their spaces for this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of safe parking
programs in our city:
1.
Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process for
organizations seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles will
enable more organizations to participate.
2.
Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking
programs in residential and commercial areas where churches and community
organizations are typically located.
3.
Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to organizations
willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of insurance,
sanitation, and security.
4.
Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local nonprofits,
healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilizing safe parking
programs have access to case management, housing resources, and other support
systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can lead with compassion and pragmatism, addressing
an urgent need in our community while upholding the dignity of our unhoused residents.
Faith-based institutions and community organizations have long been trusted pillars of support
in Bremerton, and they are uniquely positioned to provide this essential service if empowered
to do so.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take swift action to amend the existing
regulations. Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect, and we, as a community,
have a moral obligation to provide solutions that reflect our shared values of care and
inclusion.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss
this further or provide any additional information that may assist in this effort.
Sincerely,
Robert Dent
Board President Gather Together Grow Together
gather2grow@g2g2.org
(360)373-3000
From:The Conduit
To:City Council
Subject:Making Safe Park Easier for Churches and Organizations to Implement
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:47:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you today to express my deep concern about the challenges faced by our
unhoused neighbors and to advocate for a compassionate and pragmatic solution. Specifically,
I urge the City of Bremerton to revise its current policies to make it easier for local churches
and organizations to operate as safe parking programs for individuals and families who have
no other option but to sleep in their vehicles.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing
homelessness, offering a secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-needed support
services. These programs not only address immediate safety concerns but also serve as a
stepping stone toward stability and housing. Unfortunately, the current regulatory
requirements in Bremerton present unnecessary barriers for churches and organizations willing
to offer their spaces for this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of safe parking
programs in our city:
1. Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process
for organizations seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles
will enable more organizations to participate.
2. Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking
programs in residential and commercial areas where churches and community
organizations are typically located.
3. Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to
organizations willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of
insurance, sanitation, and security.
4. Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local
nonprofits, healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilizing
safe parking programs have access to case management, housing resources, and other
support systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can lead with compassion and pragmatism, addressing
an urgent need in our community while upholding the dignity of our unhoused residents.
Faith-based institutions and community organizations have long been trusted pillars of support
in Bremerton, and they are uniquely positioned to provide this essential service if empowered
to do so.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take swift action to amend the existing
regulations. Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect, and we, as a community,
have a moral obligation to provide solutions that reflect our shared values of care and
inclusion.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss
this further or provide any additional information that may assist in this effort.
Marwan Cameron
League of Black Male Voters
From:Tom Roman
To:City Council
Subject:Safe Parking Program
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 12:43:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
My wife and I are troubled by what we see daily in downtown Bremerton with concern to the
homeless. We strongly urge the City of Bremerton to make it easier for local churches and
organizations to operate as safe parking programs for individuals and families who must sleep in
their vehicles.
Safe parking programs can offer a secure place to sleep and let concerned community members
connect them to support services they desperately need to address safety and provide a foot out of
homelessness and a step toward stability. Church groups and others are barred from helping and we
want you to do something to help them, help us.
I propose the following:
1. Simplifying permitting and approval processes for qualified organizations by reducing
bureaucratic hurdles so more organizations will participate.
2. Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking programs in all areas
where churches and community organizations are typically located.
3. Make funding available to organizations willing to host safe parking sites through
grants etc. Let’s help the people willing to help our community cover the costs of insurance,
sanitation, and security.
4. Use trusted community partners to help ease the burden of case management,
housing resources, and other support systems by providing pathways to funding.
Elected officials, we urge you to lead with courage and boldness to set an example for voters and
other cities. Bremerton has many friends in the churches and community organizations. These people
have long been pillars of Bremerton’s strength and trust. They are uniquely positioned to provide
this essential service if empowered to do so. Please use them.
Act swiftly, act decisively, set an example. Cleaning up Bremerton’s streets won’t be easy. We need
YOU to show strong leadership and act first.
Thank you for your kind attention
Sincerely,
Tom Roman
Concerned Citizen and Bremerton Volunteer
roman.tom.2013.a@gmail.com
-- Tom Roman
Safe Site Remote
360-801-3307
roman.tom.2013.a@gmail.com
From: Anton Preisinger <anton@nwhospitality.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 4:42 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: We Need Safe Parking Solutions Now
Please flnd my letter attached, also included in the body of this email.
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
Our country, state, county, and the City of Bremerton continue to fail the most vulnerable people in our
community by not acting with urgency to ensure that life-saving services and resources are readily available
for the people who desperately need them. Homelessness is on all of us who allow our neighbors to suffer
without prioritizing compassionate and pragmatic solutions that meet basic needs and respect the
autonomy and dignity of people who are not living in traditional households for whatever reason.
I have spent years flghting for and begging to be allowed to provide some sort of safe parking solutions for
people living in their vehicles in Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton. As a provider of some basic
community services, I fleld calls frequently from people asking me, “Where am I allowed to park the vehicle
I’m living out of?” and I have never been able to give anybody a satisfactory answer within this county outside
of the Fishline up in Poulsbo which occasionally has some space available. People are losing their housing at
an alarming rate. As nothing is being done to forestall the rent spikes and corporate predation of living
spaces, there is no reason to expect things to start improving any time soon.
The City of Bremerton must revise its current policies to make it easier for local churches and organizations
to operate safe parking programs for individuals and families whose best remaining option is to sleep in their
vehicles. There are hundreds of people doing their best to hide in our communities as they live out of their
vehicles. Many work full-time jobs and spend an inordinate amount of time struggling to stay connected to
resources as they constantly fear being towed, ticketed or having their cars broken into or breaking down. My
organization has dedicated time, energy, and over $80,000 (including a $33k grant from Kitsap County) to
provide vehicle repairs to more than 100 of these people and families. We’ve been unable to help so many
more and the demand continues to grow. After we help people with new brakes, tires, batteries, or whatever
else their live-in vehicle requires, we always fail to provide them with any reasonable recommendations on
where they might be allowed to exist without being harassed or worse. We have developed safe parking
programs but always flnd ourselves vanquished by random, senseless policy demands – the alternative, a
lack of safe parking solutions, is pushing people deeper into homelessness, contributing to a loss of vehi cles
and an increase in instability.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing homelessness, offering a
secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-needed support services. These programs not only
address immediate safety concerns but also serve as a stepping stone toward stability and housing.
Unfortunately, the current regulatory requirements in Bremerton present unnecessary barriers for churches
and organizations willing to offer their spaces for this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of safe parking programs in
our city:
1. Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process for organizations
seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles will enable more organizations to
participate.
2. Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking programs in residential
and commercial areas where churches and community organizations are typically located.
3. Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to organizations willing to host safe
parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of insurance, sanitation, and security.
4. Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local nonproflts, healthcare
providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilizing safe parking programs have access to case
management, housing resources, and other support systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can follow the example of our neighbors in Pierce County who beneflt
from several successful safe parking programs. People are dying in Bremerton and Kitsap without safe
parking and similar supportive programs. Faith-based institutions and community organizations like the one I
founded and have been operating for over eight years, have long been trusted pillars of support in Bremerton,
and have been desperate for the ability to serve in more ways as the plight of our unh oused neighbors has
continued to worsen. These organizations are uniquely positioned to provide this essential service if the
barriers to do so can be reduced.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take immediate action to amend the existing regulations.
Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect. Our community - you, our leaders, and the residents of
Bremerton - have a moral obligation to provide solutions that refiect our shared values of care, inclusion, and
housing equity. As described in the Council Goals and Priorities for the City of Bremerton, safe parking
solutions - along with sanctioned encampments, tiny home programs, shared and supportive housing, and
expanded vouchers - are all considered essential “creative humane housing solutions” by the service
providers that we trust to flnd people housing and other services. Those service providers need your help to
get them access to these resources so they can properly respond to the needs of our community members.
We are way behind and improving these regulations will be one step in the right direction.
Thank you for prioritizing this vital issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or provide
additional information that may assist the Council to improve the active regulations on anything pertaining to
our vulnerable, unhoused community members.
Anton Preisinger
Founding Executive Director
Northwest Hospitality
888-222-5240
www.nwhospitality.org
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
Our country, state, county, and the City of Bremerton continue to fail the most vulnerable people
in our community by not acting with urgency to ensure that life-saving services and resources are
readily available for the people who desperately need them. Homelessness is on all of us who
allow our neighbors to suffer without prioritizing compassionate and pragmatic solutions that
meet basic needs and respect the autonomy and dignity of people who are not living in traditional
households for whatever reason.
I have spent years fighting for and begging to be allowed to provide some sort of safe parking
solutions for people living in their vehicles in Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton. As a
provider of some basic community services, I field calls frequently from people asking me,
“Where am I allowed to park the vehicle I’m living out of?” and I have never been able to give
anybody a satisfactory answer within this county outside of the Fishline up in Poulsbo which
occasionally has some space available. People are losing their housing at an alarming rate. As
nothing is being done to forestall the rent spikes and corporate predation of living spaces, there is
no reason to expect things to start improving any time soon.
The City of Bremerton must revise its current policies to make it easier for local churches and
organizations to operate safe parking programs for individuals and families whose best
remaining option is to sleep in their vehicles. There are hundreds of people doing their best to
hide in our communities as they live out of their vehicles. Many work full-time jobs and spend
an inordinate amount of time struggling to stay connected to resources as they constantly fear
being towed, ticketed or having their cars broken into or breaking down. My organization has
dedicated time, energy, and over $80,000 (including a $33k grant from Kitsap County) to
provide vehicle repairs to more than 100 of these people and families. We’ve been unable to help
so many more and the demand continues to grow. After we help people with new brakes, tires,
batteries, or whatever else their live-in vehicle requires, we always fail to provide them with any
reasonable recommendations on where they might be allowed to exist without being harassed or
worse. We have developed safe parking programs but always find ourselves vanquished by
random, senseless policy demands – the alternative, a lack of safe parking solutions, is pushing
people deeper into homelessness, contributing to a loss of vehicles and an increase in instability.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing
homelessness, offering a secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-needed support
services. These programs not only address immediate safety concerns but also serve as a
stepping stone toward stability and housing. Unfortunately, the current regulatory requirements
in Bremerton present unnecessary barriers for churches and organizations willing to offer their
spaces for this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of safe parking
programs in our city:
1. Streamlined Permitting Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process for
organizations seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles will
enable more organizations to participate.
2. Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking
programs in residential and commercial areas where churches and community
organizations are typically located.
3. Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to organizations
willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of insurance,
sanitation, and security.
4. Collaboration with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local nonprofits,
healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilizing safe parking
programs have access to case management, housing resources, and other support systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can follow the example of our neighbors in Pierce County
who benefit from several successful safe parking programs. People are dying in Bremerton and
Kitsap without safe parking and similar supportive programs. Faith-based institutions and
community organizations like the one I founded and have been operating for over eight years,
have long been trusted pillars of support in Bremerton, and have been desperate for the ability to
serve in more ways as the plight of our unhoused neighbors has continued to worsen. These
organizations are uniquely positioned to provide this essential service if the barriers to do so can
be reduced.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take immediate action to amend the existing
regulations. Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect. Our community - you, our
leaders, and the residents of Bremerton - have a moral obligation to provide solutions that reflect
our shared values of care, inclusion, and housing equity. As described in the Council Goals and
Priorities for the City of Bremerton, safe parking solutions - along with sanctioned
encampments, tiny home programs, shared and supportive housing, and expanded vouchers - are
all considered essential “creative humane housing solutions” by the service providers that we
trust to find people housing and other services. Those service providers need your help to get
them access to these resources so they can properly respond to the needs of our community
members. We are way behind and improving these regulations will be one step in the right
direction.
Thank you for prioritizing this vital issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this
further or provide additional information that may assist the Council to improve the active
regulations on anything pertaining to our vulnerable, unhoused community members.
Sincerely,
Anton Preisinger
Northwest Hospitality
anton@nwhospitality.org
888-222-5240
From:Amy Roszak
To:City Council
Subject:Letter to the City Council
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 12:57:42 PM
Attachments:Bremerton City Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello City Councilors-
Please change the requirements to permit houses of worship and other organizations to allow
unhoused people sleeping in their cars to do so safely in their parking lot. In addition, please
consider providing a porta-potties on sites registered with the city.
See attached letter.
Thank you.
Amy Roszak
Volunteer Coordinator for Kitsap County SWS-Silverdale
Bremerton City Council
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I am writing to you today to express my deep concern about the challenges faced by our
unhoused neighbors and to advocate for a compassionate and pragmatic solution. Specifically, I
urge the City of Bremerton to revise its current policies to make it easier for local churches and
organizations to operate as safe parking programs for individuals and families who have no other
option but to sleep in their vehicles.
Safe parking programs provide a vital resource to individuals who are experiencing
homelessness, offering a secure place to sleep while connecting them to much-needed support
services. These programs not only address immediate safety concerns but also serve as a stepping
stone toward stability and housing. Unfortunately, the current regulatory requirements in
Bremerton present unnecessary barriers for churches and organizations willing to offer their
spaces for this purpose.
I propose the following changes to support the development and sustainability of safe parking
programs in our city:
1.Streamlined Permi3ng Process: Simplify the permitting and approval process for
organizations seeking to host safe parking programs. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles will
enable more organizations to participate.
2.Zoning Flexibility: Adjust zoning requirements to explicitly permit safe parking programs
in residential and commercial areas where churches and community organizations are
typically located.
3.Resource Support: Provide incentives, such as grants or subsidies, to organizations
willing to host safe parking sites. These funds can help cover the costs of insurance,
sanitation, and security.
4.Collabora<on with Service Providers: Encourage partnerships with local nonprofits,
healthcare providers, and social services to ensure that individuals utilizing safe parking
programs have access to case management, housing resources, and other support systems.
By enacting these changes, Bremerton can lead with compassion and pragmatism, addressing an
urgent need in our community while upholding the dignity of our unhoused residents. Faith-
based institutions and community organizations have long been trusted pillars of support in
Bremerton, and they are uniquely positioned to provide this essential service if empowered to do
so.
I urge you to consider these recommendations and take swift action to amend the existing
regulations. Our unhoused neighbors deserve safety and respect, and we, as a community, have a
moral obligation to provide solutions that reflect our shared values of care and inclusion.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss
this further or provide any additional information that may assist in this effort.
Sincerely,
Amy Roszak
Volunteer Coordinator for the Kitsap County SWS program at Silverdale
3605350025