HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2025 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKETPlease contact City.Clerk@bremertonwa.gov or (360) 473-5323 up to 24 hours prior to the meeting to request
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations.
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280
* * * A M E N D E D * * *
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2025
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Starting at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603
A. AGENDA BILL BRIEFINGS
1. Resolution to adopt the 2025 Utility Land Management Plan – Forestry Manager Sean Walsh; and
Representatives from Mason, Bruce, & Girard
2. Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.05.020 entitled “Appointment and
Confirmation of Department Directors” – Human Resources Manager Charlotte Nelson
3. Public Works Agreement with Long Building Technologies, Inc. for Installation of the Emergency
Mass Communication System at the Puget Sound Navy Museum – Internal Services Manager
Matt Donleycott
B. PRESENTATION
1. Quarterly Update from Commonstreet (45 minutes) - Senior Outreach and Engagement Specialist
Trisha Munson and Project Manager Brenden Perko
C. AGENDA BILL BRIEFINGS
1. Public Hearing on Resolution to approve the 2026-2030 Consolidated Plan and Community
Development Block Grant and HOME funding recommendations for inclusion in the 2026
CDBG/HOME Year 1 Action Plan – CDBG Program Administrator Sarah Lynam
2. Ordinance to levy Property Taxes for Collection in 2026 – Financial Services & Administrative
Services Director Mike Riley
3. Ordinance to amend and re-establish City Rates and Fees for 2025-2026
Mid-Biennium – Financial Services & Administrative Services Director Mike Riley
4. Ordinance to amend and re-establish Utility Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges for 2025-
2026 Mid Biennium – Financial Services & Administrative Services Director Mike Riley
Continued on next page
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@bremertonwa.gov. 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 November 5, 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/87318266756?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
Please contact City.Clerk@bremertonwa.gov or (360) 473-5323 up to 24 hours prior to the meeting to request
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations.
D. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. 15-Minutes to consider matters affecting national security as allowed under RCW 42.30.110
(1)(a)(i) No action anticipated
2. 30-Minutes to discuss a complaint brought against a public officer as allowed under RCW
42.30.110 (1)(f) No action anticipated
E. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Public Works Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 10/21/25) – Chair Jane Rebelowski
2. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Briefing – Chair Jennifer Chamberlin
3. Regional and Other Committee/Board Briefings
4. Other General Council Business (As necessary and as time allows)
F. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: 10/22/2025
Resolution to adopt the 2025 Utility Land
Management Plan
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/5/2025
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Presenter: S. Walsh/Reps. from
Mason, Bruce, & Girard
Phone: (360) 473-5928
SUMMARY:
The City of Bremerton owns and manages approximately 8,000 acres of Utility land, of which
approximately 3,000 acres are the Union River Watershed. Collected within this watershed is the
surface water source for the City’s water utility. In 1986 the City created a Utility Land Management
Plan to provide guidance on the management of these lands and updated the plan in 1996. The
purpose of this project is to update the 1996 plan with current best scientific based practices.
City Council was updated on the project and provided a chance to submit comments on the Draft
Plan through a series of presentations held at Study Sessions on September 25, 2024; April 9, 2025,
and June 11, 2025. Public comment was collected on the draft plan via an online form with the
comment period open from June 11th through July 2nd.
Mason, Bruce and Girard prepared the Final draft update to the Utility Land Management Plan
considering existing information, the refined Plan goals and constraints, the updated baseline
resource assessment, the special topics investigation and public comment.
Approved by the Utility Land Management Plan Advisory Committee, it is recommended City Council
adopts the 2025 Utility Land Management Plan Update by resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1)Resolution No.________ ; 2)Final Draft 2025 Utility Land Management Plan; and 3)Power Point
Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Resolution No._____ to adopt the 2025 Utility Land Management Plan and
authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Plan with substantially the same terms and conditions
as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
A1
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton,
Washington, adopting the document entitled “2025 Utility Land Management
Plan”.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Water Utility owns and manages 8,000 acres of
utility land, which encompasses groundwater production and monitoring wells, surface water
intake facilities and 3,000 acres of the Union River surface water supply watershed, as part of its
municipal water supply system; and
WHEREAS, Ownership and strict control of utility land allows the utility to provide
excellent drinking water to its customers while meeting strict source protection and water quality
criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the update of the 1996 Utility Land
Management Plan with the specific objective of updating practices, procedures and program
implementation guided by best available science to ensure that the quality of water delivered to
the utility’s customers meets State and Federal requirements while remaining cost effective. NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That we find the 2025 Utility Land Management Plan consistent
with the goals and objectives of the City of Bremerton Water Utility and do hereby adopt it as an
integral part of the management of the water supply.
SECTION 2. That Director of Public Works and Utilities (Director) is hereby
authorized to implement the recommendations and programs outlined in the Plan.
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.
Page 2 of 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____day of
_______________________, 2025.
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
City of Bremerton
Utility Lands
Management Plan
Prepared for
City of Bremerton Water Utility
Department of Public Works and Utilities
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300
Portland, Oregon 97205
503-224-3445
September 22, 2025
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
History ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Land Management Goals........................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2
Property Description ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Property Boundaries ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Water Utility Uses ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Casad Dam and McKenna Falls Intake Facilities ................................................................................................................ 4
Groundwater Wells ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Reservoirs .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Pump Stations and Transmission Mains ............................................................................................................................ 4
Pipe Layout Yard ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
General Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Special Uses and Special Use Areas...................................................................................................................... 5
Watershed Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 6
Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Riparian Areas .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Forest Resources Assessment .................................................................................................................. 13
Forest Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Road System ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
Road Maintenance and Abandonment Activities ............................................................................................................ 17
Forest Inventory Data Collection Methodology .................................................................................................. 19
Inventory Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Minor Forest Products ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Carbon Credit Sales ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Forest Health ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Laminated Root Rot ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Nonnative Species Management ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Bear Damage ................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Silviculture Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Harvest Planning.............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Reforestation ................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Post Establishment Management of Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 35
Biosolids Management Program ........................................................................................................................ 35
Sustainable Harvest Level ....................................................................................................................... 37
Harvest Levels in McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and Other Utility Lands ........................................................ 39
Water Quality Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 40
Slope Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 41
Soils .................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Wildfire Risk Management and Response Plan .................................................................................................. 43
Wellhead Protection Areas ................................................................................................................................ 44
Utility Uses ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Non-Utility Related Uses .................................................................................................................................... 46
Special Uses ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Adjacent Land Uses ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Transportation Corridors ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Security ............................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Implementation Plan .............................................................................................................................. 46
Forestry Staff and Equipment Resource Planning .............................................................................................. 47
Harvest Planning ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Harvest Method Options ................................................................................................................................................. 47
McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Other Utility Lands........................................................................................................................................................... 48
Planning Guidelines ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Forest Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 48
Property Boundaries .......................................................................................................................................... 48
Reforestation ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
Reforestation Planning Tips for Success .......................................................................................................................... 49
Nonnative Species Treatment ............................................................................................................................ 49
Road Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Bridge and Culvert Monitoring, Maintenance, and Replacement ...................................................................... 50
Stream Typing .................................................................................................................................................... 50
Biosolids Management ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Building Construction and Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 51
Ongoing Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Adaptive Management Options ......................................................................................................................... 52
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Forestry Capital Improvement Plan ......................................................................................................... 52
Water Rate Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Forest Roads ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Forest Culverts ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Forestry Buildings .............................................................................................................................................. 53
Forestry Gates and Additional Security Measures ............................................................................................. 53
Forest Bridges .................................................................................................................................................... 53
References .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Figures List
Figure 1. Utility Ownership .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Reserved - Confidential ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Special Use Areas .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4. Riparian Buffers .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Salmon Stream Inventory ................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6. Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 7. Vegetative Productivity Site Classes ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Reserved - Confidential ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Cruise Stand Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 10. Example - Stand Plot Map ................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 11. Merchantable and Pre-Merchantable Stands .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 12. Age Class of Stands ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 13. Merchantable Volume ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 14. Utility Forest Health .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 15. Laminated Root Rot as Mapped by Semler 2019 ............................................................................................. 29
Figure 16. Scotch Broom Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 17. Areas of Silviculture Concern ............................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 18. Washington Modified Seed Zones (WADNR 2002)........................................................................................... 34
Figure 19. WADNR Forest Practices Rules Illustrated ........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 20. Biosolids Application Areas .............................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 21. City of Bremerton Water Utility - Net Harvestable Forest Acres by Age Class ................................................ 38
Figure 22. McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin Map ............................................................................................................... 40
Figure 23. Slope Classification Map ................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 24. Slope Stability Map (Westside Slope Stability Model FP WADNR 2024) ......................................................... 42
Figure 25. Soils Type Map (WADNR 2017) ......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 26. Reserved - Confidential ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 27. Utility Wells and Wellhead Protection Areas ................................................................................................... 45
Tables List
Table 1. Stream Resources (Total Length by Stream Type) ............................................................................................... 11
Table 2. Type F/S RMZ Requirements Western Washington- WADNR Forest Practices Rules Illustrated ....................... 12
Table 3. WMZ Requirements- WADNR FP Illustrated Manual .......................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Utility Lands by Forest and Non-Forested Areas ................................................................................................. 14
Table 5. Utility Lands (All Lands) ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Table 6. Utility Lands - Total Forested Acres and Net Forest Acres by Age Class ............................................................. 15
Table 7. Site Classes ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 8. Table Data Collected on Fixed Radius Plots ......................................................................................................... 21
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Table 9. Tree Data Collection on Variable Radius Plots .................................................................................................... 22
Table 10. Check Cruise Tolerances ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 11. Current Timber Volume Summary ..................................................................................................................... 23
Table 12. Harvest Planning Considerations. ...................................................................................................................... 32
Table 13. Percent Slope by Acres ....................................................................................................................................... 42
Photo 1. Photo of Fully Functional Bridge Number 7 ........................................................................................................ 17
Photo 2. Railcar Bridge Replacement ................................................................................................................................ 18
Photo 3. Vessey Bridge Replacement ................................................................................................................................ 18
Photo 4. Anderson Creek Concrete Dam Removal Area ................................................................................................... 19
Photo 5. Application Vehicle and Biosolids Storage Area (August 3, 2022) ...................................................................... 36
APPENDIX A Stand Examination Plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX B Special Topic Memorandums
Adjacent Land Use……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Kitsap Lake to Jarstad Park Trail…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Dept of Health Letter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Water Filtration Plant Rate Impacts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Staffing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Security Processes and Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………removed as confidential
20-Year Capital Improvement Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Carbon Project Considerations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives and Associated Revenue and Water Rate Impacts………………………………..
Revenue and Water Rate Impacts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
APPENDIX C Guidance for Evaluating New Uses on Utility Lands………………………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX D Advisory Committee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX E Public Comments and Responses………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
56
65
70
77
79
83
85
91
95
102
107
112
145
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Introduction
The City of Bremerton Public Works and Utilities Water Utility (Utility) is updating its Utility Lands and Forest Management
Plan, last updated and adopted by City Council by resolution (#2592) in 1997 (EES et al. 1996). This update to the Utility
Land Management Plan (plan) was completed by Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (MB&G) under contract with the Utility . The
Utility owns approximately 7,940 acres of land which contains numerous structures for Utility operations, forestry
operations, and other special uses and acres of forested wildland . This plan defines Utility land management goals and
uses the best available science to guide management practices.
History
The Utility acquired the Bremerton Water System in 1917 at which time it included 600 acres in the Gorst and Anderson
Creek Watersheds. Since that time, the Utility acquired the remaining acreage managed under this plan through purchase
and trade with the intent to develop and protect drinking water sources, both surface and groundwater. Currently, sources
located within the management area of this plan include the Union River surface water supply, two emergency surface
water supplies (Anderson Creek and Gorst Creek), and 11 active groundwater supply production wells. The Union River
surface water supply is of such high quality, it is one of only a handful of surface water sources in the nation allowed to
remain unfiltered. This results in significant savings for water customers.
Meeting surface and groundwater Source Water Protection Program requirements and the stringent watershed control
requirements for the unfiltered supply, is the primary driver for Utility land management policies and objectives.
This plan update included periodic review and coordination with the Utility Land Management Plan Advisory Committee
(ULMPAC). The ULMPAC was supported by MB&G, and facilitated by EnviroIssues, and the City of Bremerton. The purpose
of the advisory committee is to review, comment, and make recommendations to the City and the consulting team. The
ULMPAC reviewed draft plans, best available science, policy issues, and special topics. These issues were reviewed over a
series of meetings with the City and consulting team, considering recommendations and comments from the ULMPAC.
According to the City, “The ULMPAC is being convened specifically to consider changes to the existing plan, community
impacts of these changes, scientific data collected during this process, policy implications of alternatives, and provide
input and recommendations to the City of Bremerton. The ULMPAC will work to review and understand the scope of the
issues, potential solutions, and tradeoffs of these options” (City of Bremerton 2023). The ULMPAC members include
affiliations to City staff, tribal representatives, adjacent water purveyors, adjacent forestry property owners, Kitsap Public
Health District (KPHD), State Department of Health (DOH), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR),
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Bremerton water customer/ratepayers.
There was also significant public engagement throughout the development of the plan update. This included two City
Council Study Sessions that were open to the public, an ongoing ability of the public to comment on the Plan through the
City website, and a public review and comment period for the proposed plan update.
Land Management Goals
In this update of the plan, the Utility established the following land management goals for Utility lands.
1. The Union River Reservoir and McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will be managed to maintain the “unfiltered” water
source status in conjunction with maintaining forest health.
2. The other Utility lands will be actively and adaptively managed to sustainably protect surface and groundwater
resources and maintain forest health and resiliency while also generating revenue to reduce costs for utility rate
payers.
1
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Existing Conditions
Property Description
The Utility owns approximately 7,940-acres1 in Kitsap County, Washington, in Townships 23 and 24-North and Ranges 1-
West and 1-East. Most of the Utility land is forested, with small portions currently used for recreation and infrastructure.
Figure 1 depicts the Utility ownership boundaries.
Most of the Utility land lies within the Union River and Gorst Creek Watersheds, forming a contiguous ownership, with a
few dispersed parcels located in other drainages such as Anderson Creek Watershed and Lake Tahuya (Figure 1). Of the
total ownership, approximately 7,4411 acres are considered forestland and include portions of the Union River, Anderson
Creek and Gorst Creek Watersheds; the Lake Tahuya block; and the biosolids application areas, as well as forestry road
and riparian management zone (RMZ) acres. The remaining 499 acres of Utility land include Utility infrastructure and
special uses as described in more detail in the Special Uses and Special Use Areas section.
The Utility ownership within the Union River and Gorst Creek Watersheds is split by West Belfair Valley Road, Highway 3,
and the U.S. Navy railroad. The Anderson Creek Watershed ownership is east of Gorst at the head of Sinclair Inlet and
south of Highway 16. The Tahuya Lake ownership is northwest of Green Mountain and is split by Gold Creek Road
Northwest. The land and right-of-way associated with these highways and railroad are owned by the county, state, and
federal governments, respectively, and are outside of Utility jurisdictional control.
Property Boundaries
As the Utility property consists of a large contiguous land base and a few scattered parcels to the northwest and southeast
of the main ownership area, limited land surveys have been necessary to establish the perimeter of the ownership.
However, some of the newer boundaries, established as a result of ownership changes since the 1970’s, have not yet had
a formal survey. For more information on property boundary updates and implementation, refer to Property Boundaries
part of the Implementation Plan section.
1 Acres Calculated using Geographic Information System (GIS). Acres reflected are Gross.
2
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 1. Utility Ownership
3
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Water Utility Uses
Figure 2. Reserved - Confidential
The Utility has systems and structures in place to produce, treat, store, and distribute water throughout the City of
Bremerton and portions of unincorporated Kitsap County (Figure 2). As stated in the 2020 Water System Plan, “The Utility
treated water reservoirs provide storage, and booster stations and regulating stations control pressures within the system.
Water is delivered to customers through 328 miles of distribution pipe” (Bremerton 2022b). Some of these critical sources
and structures lay within the ownership governed by this plan.
Casad Dam and McKenna Falls Intake Facilities
Approximately 60 percent of the Utility water supply is provided by the Union River system through the McKenna Falls
Intake Facilities. The main source is the Union River Reservoir, created by Casad Dam, a concrete arch structure that rises
130 feet above the river and impounds approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water. Casad Dam on the Union River was
completed in 1956. Water flows from the reservoir down the natural streambed to the McKenna Falls Intake Facility. Three
branches of the Union River meet near the intake facility. Water from the Union River Mainstem and West Branch (used
seasonally) is blended at the McKenna Falls Intake Facility, where it is screened. Since 1992, the East Branch of the Union
River no longer enters the intake but is used to meet downstream flow requirements.
Bremerton owns and controls 98 percent of the 2,964-acre catchment area that supplies the McKenna Falls Intake
Facilities. This allows the Utility to effectively control the activities in the watershed and protect source water quality ,
meeting requirements to remain unfiltered.
Groundwater Wells
Groundwater supplies 40 percent of the water to the system with 11 active production wells and two future supply wells
located within the ownership managed under this plan. Wells have a finite lifespan, and much of the Utility land ownership
and underlying aquifers require protection as potential future sources and well sites when well replacement is required,
or additional wells are needed to meet growing demand. There are also numerous monitoring wells throughout the Utility
lands with wellheads that also require protection from contamination.
Treatment Facilities
The Utility’s surface water supply is treated with ultraviolet disinfection and chlorine disinfection at the Advanced
Disinfection Facility to meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule disinfection requirements for Giardia lamblia,
Crytosporidium, and viruses. Groundwater wells are equipped with chlorination facilities for disinfection either co-located
with the well or, in the case of the Anderson Creek Wellfield, a dedicated Hypochlorite Facility. In accordance with the
Lead and Copper Rule, pH is adjusted at the Corrosion Control Facility using caustic soda for distribution system corrosion
control. All treatment facilities are within the Utility land ownership managed under this plan.
Reservoirs
In addition to the Union River Reservoir, there are 2 raw water reservoirs, and 2 finished water reservoirs located within
the Utility ownership managed under this plan. These include two above ground steel tanks, one below ground concrete
reservoir, and Twin Lakes which receives diverted raw water from the Union River and recharges underground aquifers
through infiltration.
Pump Stations and Transmission Mains
Three pump stations lay within the ownership, as well as critical transmission mains. The transmission mains are used to
move large quantities of water from one area of the system to another, generally without service connections. Within the
Utility lands managed under this plan these include mains running from the intake facilities to the Advanced Disinfection
Facility and on to the Corrosion Control Facility and Reservoir 4, from Pump Station 17 to Kitsap Lake, and from Pump
Station 3 to the West 517 Zone (Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton).
4
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Pipe Layout Yard
The pipe layout yard is a staging and storage area for Utility distribution and treatment equipment and houses equipment
for forestry operations.
General Infrastructure
Currently, the Utility owns and maintains four forestry buildings, three biosolids roofed storage ponds, 37 gates, 56 miles
of forestry road with 9 bridges, a spoils pit within Utility land, and one emergency storage area with roof coverings.
Special Uses and Special Use Areas
The Utility allows limited special uses of Utility land outside of Utility operations, contained to specific special use areas.
Existing special uses include recreation, fisheries enhancement, utility rights-of-way, and commercial use, and are shown
in Figure 3. Increased public use can however bring increased risk to water and forest resources and an increased need
for management and monitoring. Therefore, the Utility must carefully consider potential impacts associated with these
uses. Details outlining specific measures to ensure sufficient protection of resources can be found in the Water Quality
Assessment section.
The Gold Mountain Golf Course is owned by the City and the property is managed by the Department of Parks and
Recreation under a lease agreement with the Utility.
Jarstad Park is managed by Public Works and Utilities and serves as a space for public events and yearly education and
outreach to the community, such as Kids Fishing Day and Salmon Tours. Through a lease agreement with the Utility, the
Suquamish Tribe operates its largest salmon rearing facility on Gorst Creek at Jarstad Park. This has been the site of
fisheries operations for several decades and enhances tribal and other recreational fishing.
Through a lease agreement with the Utility, the Bremerton Police Department manages the Sergeant Honsowetz Police
Firearms Training Facility which provides firearms training facilities for regional law enforcement agencies.
Major regional power and natural gas providers and communication tower companies lease rights-of-way to bring critical
services to the Bremerton region. These include Puget Sound Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Cascade Natural
Gas, and several tower management companies. Most of these entities serve the Water Utility, and these uses provide
additional revenue to the Utility.
5
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 3. Special Use Areas
Watershed Assessment
The Watershed Assessment is an evaluation of the natural resources present, or potentially present, that need to be
managed and protected with due care and concern for the environment.
Wildlife
The Utility lands are primarily undeveloped and home to the typical Pacific Northwest flora and fauna. The Utility lands
consist of predominantly second growth forested ecosystem with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) being the most
common tree species (UW 2019). Some forested stands have mixed tree age and species with shrubs interspersed
throughout containing species such as western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), red alder (Alnus rubra), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllus), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa) in the overstory, and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), western
swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), red huckleberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium), short Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa), Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum),
oso berry (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) in the understory (UW 2019). Riparian and wetland
habitat types also occur throughout the Utility lands. Various species of terrestrial and aquatic species are supported by
these forested and riparian ecosystems (USFWS 2024). Common wildlife species associated with forested, wetland, and
riparian habitats in western Washington include mammals such as black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus),
6
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Cascade red fox (vulpes cascadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), mountain lion (Puma concolor), snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus), black bear (Ursus americanus), and spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis); various species of cavity-nesting, seed-
eating, and insectivorous birds; and amphibians including rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), Pacific giant
salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus), and Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla).
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the following wildlife species protected by the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) have potential to occur within, or be affected by, activities within the Utility lands (USFWS
2024):
• Marbled murrelet, Brachyramphus marmoratus (Threatened)
• Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus (Threatened)
• Northwestern pond turtle, Actinemys marmorata (Proposed Threatened)
• Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, Bombus suckleyi (Proposed Endangered)
• Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Proposed Threatened)
Additionally, Beller’s ground beetle has been found within Utility land property and is a candidate species on the
Washington Endangered Species list (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2017a). WDFW also indicated
a blue heron rookery occurs in the Sinclair Inlet just east of the Utility lands (WDFW 2019, WDFW 2017b).
7
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 4. Riparian Buffers
Fish Habitat
According to the USFWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) the following fish species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) have potential to occur
within, or be affected by, activities within the Utility lands (USFWS 2024, NOAA 2025):
• Steelhead trout, Puget Sound DPS, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Threatened)
• Chum salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU, Oncorhynchus keta (Threatened)
• Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Threatened)
• Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Threatened)
• Dolly varden, Salvelinus malma (Proposed Similarity of Appearance Threatened)
Streams listed as salmonid stock inventory streams are present within the Utility lands for coho salmon, chum salmon,
and steelhead trout fish species (WDFW 2007). Figure 4 depicts riparian buffers throughout Utility lands. These buffers
are beneficial to water quality and fish habitat, thus reducing impacts to potential listed species present. Figure 5 shows
the approximate locations of the streams on Utility lands that may support the salmonid species listed above (WDFW
2007). WDFW also indicated a delta smelt spawning ground occurs in the Sinclair Inlet just east of the Utility lands (WDFW
8
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
2019). No species-specific surveys have been completed on Utility lands; however, as the Utility pursues projects within
the Utility lands, surveys may be required.
The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin is home to many streams and resident fish populations, but salmon habitat has not
been observed in most of the area due to a natural barrier to migratory fish at McKenna Falls which drops 90 feet over
the course of the falls downstream of the intake facilities. Figure 5 depicts cutthroat trout habitat within Union River and
the Union River reservoir, but this seems unlikely given the natural barrier. ESA-listed chum salmon and steelhead trout
critical habitat is designated along Union River below McKenna Falls as depicted in Figure 6. There are 14 fish passage
barriers that exist within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, but only one conveys a stream listed as salmon habitat.
In 2024, a restoration project was completed to improve access on forest road 5000 as well as reduce risk of erosion. The
project replaced two aging bridges, eight culverts, and improved 1.5 miles of forest road within Utility lands.
The Gorst Creek Watershed is described as “one of the largest and most productive watersheds in the east WRIA-15
subregion” and “above river mile 1.0, is rated 23rd out of 95 salmonid refugia areas within Kitsap County ” (May and
Peterson 2003). It includes Jarstad Creek, which May and Peterson (2003) reported as having the greatest value for
salmonid conservation in the watershed. The Sinclair Inlet estuary is fed by the Gorst Creek Watershed and is home to
wildlife habitat for species such as juvenile salmon, bald eagles, waterfowl, and various other species. There are 18 fish
passage barriers that exist within the Gorst Creek Watershed ownership, including six conveying streams with listed
salmon species. In 2016, the Utility replaced two undersized forest road culverts with bridges to improve fish passage. A
collaborative future project is also planned between the Utility and Suquamish Tribe to restore Gorst Creek near the
Suquamish Fish Rearing Facility by removing fish passage barriers and restoring instream habitat.
The Tahuya Lake ownership contains coho salmon and cutthroat trout stream habitat (Figure 5). Critical habitat for ESA-
listed steelhead trout exists within the Tahuya ownership Tahuya Lake and Tin Mine Creek.
The forested area that comprises the north and central portion of the Gorst Creek Watershed lies within a contiguous area
that also contains Green Mountain and Tahuya State Forest. Taken together, this area comprises the largest open -space
block in the Puget Trough Ecoregion of the Puget Sound Basin (May and Peterson 2003).
The City removed two historic dams on Anderson Creek in 2024 which opened access to three additional miles of salmonid
habitat, including critical habitat for ESA listed steelhead trout. There are no other fish passage barriers within this
ownership and coho salmon, chum salmon, and cutthroat trout habitat exists within Anderson Creek.
9
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 5. Salmon Stream Inventory
10
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 6. Critical Habitat
Riparian Areas
Streams, wetlands, and lakes on Utility lands have been mapped and classified by water type by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). Current WADNR data was utilized for this report to approximate RMZ
delineations. RMZs are required by the Forest Practices Rules of the State of Washington. Most streams are currently
classified as fish-bearing (F) or non-fish-bearing (N), while fish use for some streams is unknown (U). Non-fish-bearing
streams are further classified as perennial (Np) or seasonal (Ns). There are approximately 48-miles of mapped streams on
Utility lands that have been delineated by WADNR. Table 1 provides a summary of the stream resources on Utility lands.
Table 1. Stream Resources (Total Length by Stream Type)
Stream Type Total Property Distance (miles) Percent of Total
Fish (F) 18.72 39%
Non-Fish (N) 24.01 50%
Unknown (U) 5.27 11%
Total: 48.0 100%
These stream distances were derived from WADNR stream data. Not all streams were field verified by WADNR. The
WADNR uses a combination of LiDAR-Based stream modeling, historic stream data, and field verification to build their
WA-Hydro Database. All streams and stream buffer requirements must be field verified before operations can occur, in
accordance with the Forest Practices Rules of the State of Washington.
11
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Stream location, size, and riparian buffers were mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) data and Aerial
photography from WADNR hydrology layers. Buffer size and width vary by stream type, site class, and seasonality. Harvest
parameters within riparian buffers are site specific and vary by timber harvest objectives, stream size, seasonality, and
site class. Table 2 shows the requirements for Type “S” or “F” streams in Western Washington. Refer to the Washington
Forest Practices Act (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 222-08) for more information on specific riparian
buffers for the various stream types within Utility land.
Table 2. Type F/S RMZ Requirements Western Washington- WADNR Forest Practices Rules Illustrated
Lakes within Utility ownership include Alexander Lake, Jarstad Lake, Union River Reservoir, northern end of Tahuya Lake,
and Twin Lakes. Union River contributes approximately 60 percent of the Utility’s water supply (Bremerton 2022b). Twin
Lakes is located on high infiltrating soils and receives water diverted from the Union River supply at the Advanced
Disinfection Facility where it recharges the underlying aquifer, which feeds nearby production wells. Alexander and Jarstad
Lakes provide minor groundwater recharge and drainage via Heins Creek and Jarstad Creek to sustain Gorst Creek instream
flows. All lakes and wetlands have exclusion zones and buffers from forestry operations. Buffer rules for lakes are similar
to streams in terms of fish presence and bank protection. An additional 50 feet of buffer exists around Union River
Reservoir (for a total of 250-foot buffer), exceeding the buffer requirements by the WADNR, as it is a direct supply of
drinking water. Table 3 shows the Wetland Management Zone (WMZ) buffer requirements from WADNR.
Table 3. WMZ Requirements- WADNR FP Illustrated Manual
12
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Forest Resources Assessment
Forest Inventory
For the purposes of forest resource assessment, the Utility lands can be described in terms of forested versus non-forested
such that:
• McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin refers to all Utility forested lands within the Union River Reservoir drainage area.
• Other Utility Lands refers to forested lands outside of the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, which include the Gorst
Creek Watershed, Anderson Creek Watershed, Lake Tahuya Block, and all other remaining Utility lands.
• Riparian Management Area (RMA) refers to stream and reservoir buffers.
• Non-Forested Areas refers to Utility land that may or may not be forested but would not be considered part of
the “harvestable acres.” This includes inoperable areas, right-of-way zones, infrastructure, recreation zones, and
scenic/riparian buffers.
13
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Table 4. Utility Lands by Forest and Non-Forested Areas
Area Gross Acres
Forested Areas
Mckenna Falls Intake Subbasin
McKenna Falls Intake
Subbasin
2,863
Other Utility Lands
Gorst Creek Ownership 2,278
Lake Tahuya Ownership 35
Anderson Creek Ownership 77
Biosolids Application Site & Remaining
Utility Lands
721
Total Forested Acres 5,974
RMA Areas
RMA Acres 1,465
Non-Forested Areas
Jarstad Park 6
Gravel Pit 40
Powerline ROW 53
Structure 49
Gold Mountain Golf Course & Scenic
Buffer
351
Total Non-Forested Area 499
TOTAL ACRES 7,940
Utility lands can be classified into the following categories:
• Net Forest Areas– Forest acres, excluding roads and RMZs.
• Net Riparian Areas– Riparian management zones, excluding roads and forest areas.
• Net Non-Forested Areas – Including structures, golf course, and any non-forest area. Excludes roads.
• Roads –WADNR roads layer, buffered by 20 feet and used to calculate road acreage.
Table 5. Utility Lands (All Lands)
Classification McKenna Falls Intake
Subbasin Acres
Other Utility Lands
Acres
Total Utility Lands
Acres
Net Forest Areas 2,812 3,054 5,866
Net Riparian Areas 538 895 1,433
Net Non-Forested Areas 16 479 495
Roads 71 75 146
Totals: 3,437 4,503 7,940
Acres in Tables 5 and 6 were calculated using GIS. Table 6 shows acres by age class within the McKenna Falls Intake
Subbasin and all other Utility lands.
14
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Table 6. Utility Lands - Total Forested Acres and Net Forest Acres by Age Class
Age Class / Land Use McKenna Falls Intake
Subbasin Acres
Other Utility Forest Lands
Acres
Total Utility Forest Lands
Acres
Regeneration
(0 to 10-years-old)
309 396 705
Pre-Merchantable
(11 to 24-years-old)
486 809 1,295
Merchantable
(25 years and older)
2,014 1,846 3,860
Sub-Total Net Forest 2,809 3,051 5,860
Net Riparian 538 897 1,435
Roads 71 75 146
Totals: 3,418 4,023 7,441
Tree species composition on Utility lands consists predominantly of Douglas-fir, with minor components of western
hemlock, white pine, black cottonwood, red alder, and bigleaf maple. Timber harvest over the last few decades has varied
in size from 1-acre salvage harvests to 50+ acre clearcuts. Silviculture treatments have also been implemented, such as
mechanical brushing treatments, pre-commercial thinning, slashing, commercial thinning, and nonnative species removal.
Figure 7 shows Site Classes across Utility lands. Site Class refers to the site’s maximum vegetative productivity in terms of
timber production. The site index is the average height of dominant trees within a stand at a given base age. For example,
Douglas-fir with a site index of 125 at a base age of 50 will be approximately 125 feet tall at age 50. Site indexes are
grouped into site classes ranging from I (highest) to V (lowest) as shown in Table 7. The predominant Site Class for Utility
lands is Site Class III, as illustrated in Figure 7. The Site Class information in Figure 7 is base age 50 and provided by WADNR.
Table 7. Site Classes
Site Class (Base Age 50) Site Index (feet)
I 135+
II 115 - 135
III 95 - 115
IV 75 - 95
V ˃75
15
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 7. Vegetative Productivity in terms of Timber Production by Site Class
Road System
Utility lands feature a well-maintained road system which represents less than 2% of land surface within Utility lands.
Most roads are rocked, all season roads, with a small component of dirt spur-roads that are for seasonal use only. Based
on a GIS analysis, there are approximately 56.6-miles of mapped roads within the Utility lands, not including some minor
spur-roads or biosolids-application trails. There is a total of 26.4 miles of biosolids trails located on Utility property. This
road system includes nine bridges, all of which have been field verified and confirmed to be sound and functional (Figure
8). Out of the nine bridges, one will need to be updated or replaced within the next 20-years. Below is photograph of an
example bridge in good condition, located on Utility land.
16
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
There are 256 mapped culverts on the Utility lands, varying in size from 18 to 66 -inches in diameter. All mapped culverts
and bridges include latitude and longitude, road location, elevation, diameter, length, and culvert-type information. There
are 36 undersized or aging culverts identified for replacement by the Utility. A large portion of the culverts are corrugated
metal pipes installed pre-Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP). They are currently not identified as needing
to be replaced but they may require replacement depending on the condition as time progresses. Figure 8 presents the
approximate locations of the bridges and culverts within the Utility property.
The Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP) was developed by the WADNR in 2001. This process allow ed
landowners to create an inventory of their forest roads and infrastructure with the purpose of improving forest roads and
infrastructure to current forest practices standards. In 2001, the Forestry Division contracted Olympic Resource
Management to complete road maintenance plans to meet the planning requirements of the RMAP. Per the 2001 RMAP
Report, the information collected was used to identify areas that did not meet forest practices rule standards, and to
schedule needed upgrades or repairs to be completed by 2016. The findings, recommendations, and detailed work plans
for remediation can be found in the City’s 2001 RMAP Report.
Figure 8. Reserved - Confidential
Road Maintenance and Abandonment Activities
After Olympic Resource Management conducted the road maintenance plan in 2001, the Forestry Division completed all
identified projects and remedied any flagged issues within the original RMAP report. It was determined in the 2001 RMAP
report that the overall condition of the road system within the Utility property was good, due to most of the roads being
well constructed, receiving little winter-time traffic, and effectively handling high water flows. Some general
recommendations at the time were to consider more relief culverts to help mitigate road surface erosion and potential
for sediment delivery. A list of corrective actions was identified for all road-related problems. These actions were given a
priority rating and can be found within the 2001 RMAP Report. A comprehensive action report of all RMAP related
work/reviews planned or completed can be found in the Annual Accomplishment Report Through October 31, 2016 .
Photo 1. Photo of Fully Functional Bridge Number 7
17
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Recent road maintenance and construction activities within Utility ownership include the installation of two new bridges
in 2024. This effort was part of the 500 0-Road Project to improve access as well as reduce risk of erosion. Photos of the
Vessey (Photo 2) and Railcar (Photo 3) bridge replacements are shown below.
Project work also included the replacement of eight culverts, and improvement of approximately 1.5 miles of road. In
2016, two forest road culverts were replaced with bridges to improve fish passage on Gorst Creek. The Anderson Creek
Dams Removal project removed two earthen and concrete dams along the upper west and east forks of Anderson Creek
(Photo 4). Historically, these dams were retained as a public water supply for the Utility but were no longer in use and
were removed to allow for fish passage and habitat restoration. This project was completed in 2024 and received an
American Council of Engineering Companies Silver Award for complexity.
Photo 3. Vessey Bridge Replacement Photo 2. Railcar Bridge Replacement
18
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Photo 4. Anderson Creek Concrete Dam Removal Area
Forest Inventory Data Collection Methodology
A critical step in updating the Utility’s forest inventory was the forest inventory cruise (cruise) of a specified list of stands
within the Utility’s forestland. The complete forest inventory is in Appendix A. The purpose of the cruise was to create a
stand-based forest inventory for all stands on the property, which will yield statistically sound estimates of typical forest
inventory metrics and provide the information necessary to calculate sustainable harvest levels and growth projections.
This type of cruise should be done every 10-years to have accurate inventory information for planning purposes. For more
details on implementing a forest inventory update, refer to the forest inventory part of the Implementation Plan section.
Stands were selected for cruising based on existing inventory data, targeting the highest volume stands. A total of 80
stands were selected to be cruised, 78 of which consisted of merchantable timber, and two that consisted of pre-
merchantable timber. A total of 3,089 acres were cruised for this inventory update . The remaining merchantable stands
were visited in the field and assigned stand level data of similar stand types. The un -cruised stands can be distinguished
in the inventory summary information by the ‘<Null>’ Cruise Date and Data Source of ‘Copied’, and feature estimates of
volume, species, composition, and trees per acre.
All pre-merchantable and regeneration stand types were delineated using a combination of GIS/aerial photography and
field verification to determine species composition, stocking, vigor, estimated age, and any silviculture treatments
previously conducted or recommended.
The following data were collected for all forest stands (if applicable):
• Unique Stand ID
• Gross Acres
• Net Acres
• Harvest Year
• Birth Year
• Age
• Stocking
19
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
• Pre-Commercial Thinning (PCT) Year
• Silviculture Notes
• Timber Use
• Timber Type
• Cruise Date
• Major Species
• Timber Volume (Merchantable Age Class)
Figure 9. Cruise Stand Vicinity Map
Using GIS software, cruise maps were generated for all 80 stands to be cruised. Figure 9 shows the stands that were cruised
for the 2024 Inventory. Plot spacing was determined by stand, based on stand acres; small stands had a greater plot
concentration than large stands. Five to 30 plots were established in each stand and were established using a square grid
with a random origin to ensure equal and unbiased distribution across the stand. The distance between plots ranged from-
3 chains (198 feet) to 8.5-chains (561 feet). Below is an example plot map for a given stand (Figure 10).
20
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Timber cruisers collected data at each plot for all live trees, including seedlings, using a combination of fixed radius plot s
and variable radius plots. Tables 8 and 9 below show the cruise measurements recorded at each plot. Variable radius plots
use a prism factor, where trees are selected based on size and distance from plot center. Fixed radius plots have a fixed
area, where all trees that meet specifications within the fixed plot area are recorded. Variable radius plots are typically
used for older forest types, while fixed radius plots are typically used for younger forest types (i.e. regeneration).
Table 8. Table Data Collected on Fixed Radius Plots
Item Frequency Notes
Figure 10. Example - Stand Plot Map
21
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Species Every tree 2-character code
Tally Every tree Tally the number of trees by species and diameter class –
Maximum of 10
Diameter Class Every diameter class Group tally to the nearest 1-inch diameter class. For trees
less than 4.5 feet tall, record a diameter of zero inches
Component Code Every tree Description code of tree status (typical live tree, cull tree,
or broken topped tree)
Average Height Every species/diameter class Determine the average height of each species/diameter
class combination
Live Crown Ratio Every tree greater than or equal to
4.5 feet tall
Determine the average live crown ratio by species and
diameter class for trees that are greater than or equal to
4.5 feet tall
Table 9. Tree Data Collection on Variable Radius Plots
Item Frequency Notes
Species Every tree 2-character code
Tally Every tree Only enter value greater than 1 for edge-
plot trees
DBH (Diameter at Breast Height-4.5
feet)
Every tree Nearest Inch
Component Code Every tree Description code of tree status (typical live
tree, cull tree, or broken topped tree)
Live Crown Ratio Same trees as measured for total
height
Nearest 10% ocular estimate of percentage
live crown
Total Height 1st and 3rd trees per species on
each plot and trees with defect
that impacts total height
Measure total heights across the range of
diameter classes for all species to the
nearest 1.0-foot
Broken Top Height All trees with a broken top Record in the total height column to the
nearest 1.0-foot
Percentage Defect & Breakage by Tree
Thirds (Bottom, Middle, Top)
Every tree with defect
(No total height necessary)
Nearest 10%
Minimum Length = 12-feet
Minimum Diameter (Scale End) = 5-inches
Quality control was conducted by check cruising to ensure the data collected were consistent and accurate throughout
the project. Check cruising was performed for each member of the cruising field crew (cruiser). A stand was selected at
random and five continuous plots were selected from that stand, per cruiser. Table 10 below shows the check cruising
tolerances and acceptable rates of error.
22
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Table 10. Check Cruise Tolerances
Measurement Description Maximum Acceptable Rate of Error
Number of tally trees Correct tally of trees within plot 0%
Tree Species Correct species identification 0%
DBH (Diameter at Breast Height-4.5
feet)
Diameters measured with an accuracy
of +/- 1.0 in.
5%
Total tree height Heights measured with an accuracy of
+/- 10%.
5%
Broken top height Heights measured with an accuracy of
+/- 10%.
5%
Tree Component code Correct tree component code 0%
% defect Record % defect with an accuracy of +/-
10%
10%
In the event of substandard work by any cruiser, the following steps were taken:
• On-site training and review of the instructions and protocols
• Visit a plot where measurements were out of tolerance and review cruise specifications.
• Return to cruise plots and remeasure.
The check cruiser determined if a cruiser's work needed to be redone. If substandard work continued, the check cruiser
and project manager determined if a cruiser needed to be removed from the project.
A total of 20 plots were checked across three timber cruisers. There were some minor differences, but all work was
considered acceptable. One cruiser had some measurements out of tolerance at the plot level, which led to additional
plots being checked for that cruiser. All additional plots checked were within tolerance and showed acceptable rates of
error.
Inventory Results
A “Stand Lister” spreadsheet, with a tabular data summary for each stand, and a shapefile of the Utility ‘Stands’ layer, was
provided to the Utility.
Table 11 below displays inventory volume by area across all Utility lands. Volumes shown are in thousand-board-feet
(mbf).
Table 11. Current Timber Volume Summary
Area Volume (Timber over 35-
years-old)
McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin 64,848
Other Utility Lands 50,636
Total: 115,484
Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the merchantability, age class, and volume distributions across all Utility lands. Note that over
half the volume is within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin. This indicates a lower harvest level historically and reflects
the primary management objectives for the subbasin, which are water quality protection and forest health.
23
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 11. Merchantable and Pre-Merchantable Stands
24
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 12. Age Class of Stands
25
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 13. Merchantable Volume
Minor Forest Products
The Utility currently has a contract in place for the sale of minor forest products to I.E.F. Corporation – Golden Eagle
Evergreens. The contract allows for the harvest and sale of salal and huckleberry as well as the boughs of western
redcedar, western white pine, and Douglas-fir from specific areas within the Utility ownership. The contract stipulates that
no entry is allowed during inclement weather, which is when roads, streams, and wetlands are at higher risk of damage.
Entry is also prohibited within water intake areas, well head protection zones, and the Sergeant Honsowetz Police Firearms
Training Facility, unless authorized by the Utility. A similar agreement is expected to be put in place for the Suquamish
tribe to collect minor forest products such as western redcedar bark. Minor forest product sales when conducted in small
amounts are not expected to impact water quality throughout Utility land. An increase in patrol of the harvest areas may
be necessary to ensure compliance with the access permit rules and harvesting specifications.
26
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Carbon Credit Sales
Carbon credit sales from Utility land is described in detail in the Carbon Project Considerations Special Topic Memo in
Appendix B.
Forest Health
Forest health is generally defined as the overall ability of the forest to resist or contain potential forest pathogens, insects,
and wildlife damage that can suppress growth or cause mortality. Figure 14, which features WADNR Forest Health Data,
illustrates the general locations of various potential insect, disease, and other issues; note that observations on the ground
revealed minor issues in most cases. Only routine amounts of mortality and blowdown, which are common in many
mature forests, were found during the inventory cruise and other field inspections.
Laminated Root Rot
Laminated root rot is a common root disease, caused by the fungal pathogen Phellinus weirii, which results in tree
mortality and significantly affects forest stands in the Pacific Northwest (USFS 1981, USFS 1995). Surveys were conducted
in 2019 on Utility land and found laminated root rot throughout the ownership as depicted in Figure 15 (Semler 2019).
Semler (2019) recommended allowing natural succession to occur and/or harvesting highly susceptible species within the
infected pockets of trees where the disease is present. Buffer strips implemented around infected pockets, or stump
removal are also effective methods of treatment. When reestablishing a recently harvested root rot area, disease-resistant
species should be favored for planting (see Silviculture section for details). For those laminated root rot locations within
the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, it is imperative these areas are monitored and aggressively treated as necessary to
prevent stand disturbance from expanding due to blowdown and subsequent insect issues. Large disturbances to stands
within the watershed could lead to water quality issues as soils become exposed and more susceptible to erosion.
27
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 14. Utility Forest Health
28
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Nonnative Species Management
The primary nonnative species that must be addressed on Utility lands are Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense). Figure 16 shows the primary areas where Scotch
broom concentrations exist, which lie mostly within the wellhead protection areas and within 1,600 feet of Twin Lakes.
The use of broadcast herbicide is prohibited in these water protection areas per the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (BMC
20.14) and the City’s adopted Integrated Vegetation Management Plan. Therefore, vegetation must be managed
manually, which is very labor intensive and results in higher concentrations of nonnative species in these areas. Recently
harvested units and younger plantations are at higher risk for nonnative species. Increased monitoring and mitigation are
highly important during the first few years of stand establishment to ensure plantations are free-to-grow.
Figure 15. Laminated Root Rot as Mapped by Semler 2019
29
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Bear Damage
Black bears are present on Utility lands and can have a significant effect on the health of Douglas-fir stands (See Figure
14). Bears will claw at the bark of trees to access and eat the cambium layer, which will at a minimum leave the tree
defective on one side, or in the most severe instances will girdle and kill the tree. Feeding stations may be used in areas
with high bear concentrations, where bears are fed nutritional pellets that contain higher amounts of sugar than they find
in the tree cambium layer. This method of providing the bears with an alternative to tree cambium has mixed results. If
bear damage becomes too widespread and is affecting the overall health of the forest, a method of bear removal may be
necessary.
Figure 16. Scotch Broom Areas
30
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Silviculture Practices
The U.S. Forest Service defines silviculture as “the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition,
health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a
sustainable basis” (Powell 2013). This is accomplished by applying different types of silvicultural treatments such as
thinning, harvesting, planting, pruning, prescribed burning and site preparation. Intermediate treatments (thinning and
pre-commercial thinning) are designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand after
establishment or regeneration and prior to final harvest. A silvicultural prescription is a document which has a planned
series of treatments designed to change current stand structure and composition of a stand to one that meets
management goals. The prescription normally considers ecological, economic, and societal objectives and constraints.
Various silviculture applications have been used on Utility lands, including pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning,
final harvest, reforestation, salvage harvest, mechanical brushing, slashing, nonnative species removal, and herbicide
treatments.
There are silviculture areas of concern throughout the property, both within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and on
other Utility lands. Concerns include under- or overstocked regeneration and pre-merchantable units, high concentrations
of competing brushy vegetation, and areas of dense nonnative species. Figure 17 shows the primary Silviculture Concern
Areas. Due to the high component of competing brushy vegetation within some of the regeneration units, interplanting
and nonnative species mitigation must be a top priority.
31
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 17. Areas of Silviculture Concern
Harvest Planning
Timber Harvest planning is a multifaceted endeavor that must consider over time the landowner’s management
objectives, resource protection, site conditions, harvest type, and economics. Prioritizing the Utility’s objectives within the
harvest planning process assures appropriate and successful management and stewardship of Utility forestland. Table 12
is a guide for harvest planning considerations.
Table 12. Harvest Planning Considerations.
Site Conditions Economic Factors Harvest Type Resource Protection Management
Objectives
32
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Water Short- and Long-
Term Income Needs
Even-aged Harvest Water Quality/
Protection of Drinking
Water
Maintaining
“Unfiltered”
Water Source Status
Topography Logging Methods and
Cost
Selective Harvest Riparian and Wetland
Management Zones
Riparian Protection
Soil Reforestation
Methods and Cost
Pole Harvest Timing of Harvest
Protection of Surface
and Ground Waters
Forest Health Future Project Cost Cable Logging Fish and Wildlife Maintaining
Forest
Health/Resiliency
Stand Type Tax Considerations Ground-Based
Logging
Archaeological,
Cultural, and
Historical Sites
Minimizing
Disturbance
Aspect Log Market/ Timing Salvage Logging Threatened
and
Endangered Species
Timber Revenue
These considerations must be addressed when planning any harvest activity. This allows the Forestry Division to
continually monitor and align the harvest plans with the Utility’s management objectives. It is important for the Forestry
Manager, in consultation with the Water Utility Manager, to conduct an annual review of completed harvests and future
harvest plans to ensure harvests are aligned with the goals of the Utility.
Reforestation
Reforestation is the process of establishing a new forest either naturally by leaving seed trees or artificially by planting
seedlings. This is a critical aspect of sustainable forest management, as it is establishing the forest life cycle and will in
large part determine the success of a forest landscape. Timely reforestation and planting of trees suited to the site ensures
that trees are established ahead of competing brush or nonnative species. The Washington Forest Practices rules require
that three years post-harvest there are 190 free-to-grow trees per acre. Planting more trees than required by the Forest
Practices Rules allows for the loss of trees due to deficient microsites, animals, and potential drought conditions.
Successful reforestation consists of three main planning categories: Site preparation, seed/tree selection, and correct
planting preparation.
Site preparation is necessary when harvest units are left in a condition unsuitable for planting. Site preparation includes
reducing competing vegetation and slash disposal, while minimizing soil disturbance. Certain aspects of site preparation
are initiated before the timber has been cut, such as how slash will be piled during the harvest. Planning ahead allows the
Utility to potentially choose harvest methods that will help create favorable conditions for planting.
The selection of appropriate trees for specific site conditions is critical for successful establishment of the new forest
stand. Figure 18 is a Washington seed zone map for Douglas-fir.
33
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 18. Washington Modified Seed Zones (WADNR 2002)
Planting alternative species for site specific reasons may be necessary to successfully establish the new forest stand.
Planting western redcedar in wet areas or creek drainages where Douglas-fir may not thrive can ensure full establishment
of the new stand. In areas severely infected with laminated root rot, using alternative species such as western redcedar
or pine will ensure a healthy stand and improve the health and resiliency of the overall forest landscape.
Planting preparation is critical for reforestation success, and includes seedling care and handling, correct planting
techniques, proper seedling storage, and planting timing. Weather, road conditions, contractor availability, seedling
storage, and crew experience are examples of the many variables the Utility should plan for during planting season. One
limiting factor when it comes to proper planting preparation is planter supervision. Assuming every aspect has been
properly planned, it is important to have a forester, foreman, or trusted contractor present while trees are being packaged
at the nursey, transported to storage, loaded for planting, and planted on site. Correct planting of the seedlings on a
specific site can alone change the trajectory of reforestation success. Figure 19 shows planting errors to avoid when hand
planting bare-root seedlings.
34
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 19. WADNR Forest Practices Rules Illustrated
Post Establishment Management of Vegetation
Post establishment management of vegetation includes pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, pruning, slashing,
nonnative species control, herbicide applications, and managing competing brush. This range of management practices
help to promote overall forest growth, health, and productivity. As a specific site on the forest landscape matures, these
practices become less frequent or necessary. It is paramount for effective stand establishment to use tools like the ones
listed above to ensure long-term sustainability, overall forest health and resiliency, and to optimize timber quality and
value. These management practices are site specific and should be part of each years’ planning process.
Biosolids Management Program
The Utility utilizes approximately 738 acres of Utility land at two separate sites for biosolids application (See Figure 20).
This application is permitted by the Department of Ecology and administered locally by the Kitsap Public Health District
and is the longest running forest application program in Washington State. The Forestry Division manages the biosolids
application in full compliance with permit requirements . The process enhances tree growth in application areas and
provides a cost-effective method of biosolids disposal, reducing wastewater treatment plant costs.
This program has been actively applying biosolids to a designated area of forestland since 1992. The permitted area of
both sites is approximately 516 acres. Site 1, located west of Gold Mountain Golf Course, is approximately 361 acres and
site 2, located east of Gold Mountain Golf Course, is approximately 155 acres (Figure 20). At the start of the program,
application load limits were established and environmental monitoring indicated no known adverse impacts on soils,
groundwater, or streams. Target nitrogen rates were developed with the consideration for silviculture nutrition, stand
age, site conditions, soil types and understory vegetation. Refer to the 2024 Biosolids Program Annual Report for specific
amounts of applied dry tons/acre (Department of Ecology 2025).
35
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
The forest within the application area has historically shown a low-level increase of individual tree diameter and height
growth over time. While research is still ongoing as to the benefits of biosolid applications, notable improvements to the
forest structure and soils is quantifiable. “Typically forest soils have relatively small quantities of nutrients and organic
matter, which can inhibit tree growth. Biosolids can play a valuable role by amending the soil, providing essential nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and improving soil structure. The fine particles and organic matter found in biosolids
can quickly enhance soil moisture and nutrient-holding characteristics, and in the long-term continue a slow release of
nutrients to the soil as the organic matter decomposes, permanently improving site productivity. Most tree species grow
faster from the application of biosolids; however, some respond more dramatically than others. Douglas-fir, the Pacific
Northwest’s premier timber species, responds very well, with an increase in growth of up to 75 percent. Within six months
of applying biosolids to a conifer forest, understory plants grow more vigorously and display a deeper green color than
before the application. This understory vegetation is also typically higher in nutrients, serving as a better food source and
habitat for wildlife. The lush understory is not only visually pleasing but can be of commercial value as quality alternative
forest products are produced in the form of ferns, salal, and other vegetation for floral arrangements” (NW Biosolids
2018). Photo 5 shows a photo of an application vehicle and biosolids storage area.
Photo 5. Application Vehicle and Biosolids Storage Area (August 3, 2022)
36
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 20. Biosolids Application Areas
Sustainable Harvest Level
Sustainable harvest is defined as the volume of timber that can be harvested annually from a given land base on a
perpetual basis without reducing the total merchantable volume. Essentially a sustainable harvest can be boiled down to
mean: “harvest equals growth”. A key factor that must be considered when determining the sustainable harvest level is
the rotation age. The lower the rotation age, the higher the annual harvest. Industrial forest owners that are tasked with
maximizing net present value generally harvest when the discount rate exceeds the timber's growth rate, which is around
age 40. Forest owners such as the Utility, with values and goals not strictly driven by economics, can set older rotation
ages, which results in lower annual yields.
Primary forest management objectives must align with Utility land management goals:
• The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will be managed to maintain the “unfiltered” water source status in conjunction
with maintaining the forest health.
• The Other Utility Lands will be actively and adaptively managed to sustainably protect surface and groundwater
resources and maintain forest health and resiliency while also generating revenue to reduce costs for utility rate
payers.
37
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
A 2019 analysis by the University of Washington (UW) provided the Utility with two separate guidelines for harvest from
their timberlands (UW 2019). For land within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, where source water protection is the
main priority followed by forest health, the annual harvest level was set at 500,000 board feet or 30% of the annual growth
of 1.7 million board feet (mmbf). Based on the 2005 inventory, this equated to a 100-year rotation within the subbasin.
For lands outside the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin the annual sustainable harvest level was set conservatively at 2.4-
mmbf, which was based on modeling that showed sustainable average annual harvest volumes outside the McKenna Falls
Intake subbasin could range from 2.5-3.0-mmbf while still protecting surface and groundwater supplies in those areas.
A 2016 analysis by Lusignan Forestry provided 10-year guidelines for sustainable harvest levels for all harvestable timber
owned by the Utility, based on either a 50 or 60-year rotation (Lusignan 2016). The analysis assumed that all acres 30-
years of age and greater were merchantable, and that all acres would be cut in a given timeframe. The results were
sustainable annual harvests of 2.6 and 3.1-mmbf for 60 and 50-year rotations respectively. This practical approach was
the basis of the analysis of sustainable harvest levels within this plan.
There are 5,864 total net harvestable forest acres owned by the Utility. There are 3,573-acres older than 35-years, which
were considered merchantable for the purpose of this analysis of sustainable harvest level. It is important to note that the
35-year age break for this analysis was used as it is more conservative and practical than the 25-year break shown above
in Table 6, where the term “merchantable” is a nominal term used to describe the general acres breakdown and for
inventory design and planning. Note that the inventory shows no new stands were established (following a clearcut) from
1956 through 1979, which is why there is a gap between the 40 and 66+ year age classes. Figure 21 shows a breakdown
of the net harvestable acres by age class.
Figure 21. City of Bremerton Water Utility - Net Harvestable Forest Acres by Age Class
There is 115.5-mmbf of volume in the merchantable category, greater than 35-years of age. Based on the current
merchantable and harvestable acreage of 3,573-acres, and a current total volume within that acreage of 115.5-mmbf, the
even-flow sustainable harvest per year for the next ten years would be:
➢ Based on a 60-year rotation: 3.2-mmbf per year
➢ Based on a 50-year rotation: 3.8-mmbf per year
Checking these sustainable harvest levels against the “harvest equals growth” definition of sustainable harvest, the
available harvestable forest acres would need to be growing 539 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre per year for
sustainable annual harvest of 3.2-mmbf on a 60-year rotation. For a 50-year rotation with a sustainable annual harvest of
3.8-mmbf, growth would need to be 647-mbf per acre per year. Based on the research done as part of the 20 19 UW
report, the Current Annual Increment (CAI) for all available acres is 724 board feet per acre per year. Therefore, the even-
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 66+Net AcresAge Class
City of Bremerton Water Utility
Net Harvestable Forest Acres by Age Class
38
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
flow sustainable harvest levels for either a 50 or 60-year rotation shown above are well within the annual growth level of
the Utility’s available harvestable forest lands.
Harvest Levels in McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and Other Utility Lands
The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin contains 2,811-acres of harvestable forest, which is 48% of the total harvestable forest
acres owned by the Utility, and contains 1,968-acres that are greater than 35-years of age, which is 55% of the total
harvestable forest acres owned by the Utility that are greater than 35-years of age2. If harvest occurred in the McKenna
Falls Intake Subbasin evenly over the next 10-years, 1.5 to 1.8-mmbf would be harvested from land within the McKenna
Falls Intake Subbasin. This would more than triple the 500-mbf annual harvest level recommended in the 2019 UW report.
If the Utility harvests 25-acres per year (0.75-mmbf) in the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, and the goal for the Other
Utility lands remains either a 50 or 60-year rotation, the even-flow sustainable harvest per year for the next ten years
would be:
➢ Other Utility Lands 60-year rotation: 1.6-mmbf per year
➢ Other Utility Lands 50-year rotation: 2.0-mmbf per year
➢ McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin Fixed Harvest Level: 25-acres per year (0.75-mmbf per year)
The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin encompasses approximately 3,067 acres of the Utility ownership, which includes the
catchment area of the Union River Reservoir. Using LiDAR, mapped streams, and stand level data, stands associated with
the Union River Basin were classified as ‘Union River Basin’ within the Standlister. Throughout the rest of the Plan, the
Union River Basin area is referred as the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin. The ‘Union River Basin’ is approximately 2,879
acres (gross forest acres).
2 Acres are based on associated stands as shown in Figure 11.
39
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 22. McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin Map
Figure 22 shows the stands that for practical purposes should be considered McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin stands. On
the western edge of the actual boundary, all stands outside the boundary were included as they would likely only make
practical operational sense to harvest as part of a stand within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin. On the eastern edge of
the actual boundary, stands were included or excluded based on how much of the stand’s acreage fell inside or outside
the boundary. When considering stands for harvest along the boundary of McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, adherence to
set harvest limitations and determination of harvest boundaries must consider source water protection. All tactical harvest
planning in and around McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will require detailed field evaluation. Figure 22 shows the McKenna
Falls Intake Subbasin and the associated stands.
Refer to the Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives and Associated Revenue and Water Rate Impacts Special Topic Memo
in Appendix B for detailed historic harvest information and revenue projections.
Water Quality Risk Assessment
The Utility’s surface and groundwater areas are particularly critical areas on Utility land in which activities can pose a risk
to drinking water sources and/or infrastructure. This assessment evaluates risks to source water quality and quantity from
existing conditions and uses. Any changes to existing uses or proposed new uses should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis for risk and compatibility with the established management policy and goals outlined in Appendix C. The Kitsap Lake
to Jarstad Park Trail Special Topic Memo that evaluates the risk and potential impacts of the proposed Kitsap Lake to
Jarstad Park Trail is provided in the Appendix B.
40
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Slope Analysis
Utility forestlands have been analyzed to determine areas that have potential for mass slope failure and to determine the
severity of impact to infrastructure in the event of slope failure. Utility forestlands are generally composed of vegetated
terrain that have slope grades less than 30%. However, there are some very steep areas, particularly in the McKenna Falls
Intake Subbasin, surrounding the Union River Reservoir, and the ridge that separates the Union and Gorst Creek
Watersheds. Figure 23 shows a slope classification across the ownership, based on percent slope. Extreme slopes are
defined as greater than 70%. Moderate/High slopes are defined as between 40-70%.
Figure 23. Slope Classification Map
Areas of potential instability as mapped by WADNR and displayed in Figure 24 generally correlate with the extreme slope
classification in Figure 23. Table 13 displays total area by slope percentage across the entire ownership. Full or partial
slope failure within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin could result in temporary or potentially long-term water quality
concerns resulting from sediment delivery to waterways. If a large amount of sediment flowed into Union River Reservoir,
increased turbidity would result in immediate surface water system shutdown. In the case of a full or partial failure, there
could also be potentially negative impacts such as costly damage to infrastructure like intake facilities, transmission mains,
roads, culverts, and bridges. These impacts would likely cause extended periods of system shutdowns to both the Water
Utility and Forestry Division operations. The likelihood of slope failure appears low given the lack of forestry operations
within a 250-foot buffer of the Union River Reservoir. It is recommended winter-time operations on or near steep slopes
be limited for any timber harvest operation or road maintenance/construction project.
41
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Table 13. Percent Slope by Acres
Slope Percentage Acres
Low Slopes (< 40%) 6,187
Moderate/High Slopes (40% - 70%) 1,441
Extreme Slopes (> 70%) 312
Total: 7,940
Figure 24 shows the Westside Slope Stability Model (FP)-2024, from Washington Department of Natural Resources.
“Potentially unstable slopes are characterized by steep slopes, areas with bare soils, uneven topography, cracks in soil,
hummocky or uneven terrain, or pistol-butted trees” (WADNR 2021).
Figure 24. Slope Stability Map (Westside Slope Stability Model FP WADNR 2024)
Soils
The soil profile across Utility lands consists primarily of glacial drift. This is prevalent throughout Kitsap County and
Northwest Washington. The most common soil types within Utility ownership consist of Basic Igneous Bedrock, Glacial
Outwash, and Glacial Till (WADNR 2017). This parent material is typical in the surrounding areas and consistent for a local
climate that features average annual precipitation of over 40 inches per year. The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin receives
an average of 63.5 inches of precipitation per year. The most common soil series on Utility lands is the ‘Kilchis’ complex,
which are shallow, well drained, and weathered from basalt. The Utility land soil depth varies by elevation. Soils formed
42
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
from glacial drift are commonly used for timber production, pastureland, crop production, wildlife habitat, and urban
areas. “The natural vegetation associated with this soil profile is Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, red alder
with an understory of salal, Oregon grape, western bracken fern, western sword fern, Pacific rhododendron, red
huckleberry, evergreen huckleberry, and orange honeysuckle” (Hipple 2011). Caution must be taken for operations that
occur during the rainy season. Site specific considerations need to be considered when planning road construction or
timber harvest activity. Following all state forest practices regulations regarding geological protection, and having
adequate buffers on all waterbodies and geological features will continue to protect the Utility’s quality drinking water.
Figure 25 shows the major soil types within the Utility ownership.
Figure 25. Soils Type Map (WADNR 2017)
Wildfire Risk Management and Response Plan
In 2019, the University of Washington produced a Forest Health Assessment and Forest Management Practices
Recommendation Report for the Utility (Semler 2019). This report cites two main forest health concerns that may impact
the risk of wildland fire on Utility property: laminated root rot and climate change. A large-scale outbreak of laminated
root rot could dramatically increase the potential fuel load of dead and dying trees. Changes in the historical climate for
this area will also increase the risk and intensity of large-scale wildfire. Climate change is expected to bring hotter, drier
summers and, in turn, reduced soil moisture, which is expected to allow wildfires to start easier, burn hotter, and move
quicker through the landscape. The 2019 UW report lists three options for treating laminated root rot, and three options
for reducing fire risk. Refer to [Semler 2019] for more information on treatment options for laminated root rot and options
for reducing fire risk within the Utility.
43
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Other wildfire risk management considerations within the Utility ownership could include but are not limited to expanding
forest roads to act as fire breaks, thinning/pruning treatments along forest roads, maintaining access on all roads for
reduced response time, hazardous fuels management, increasing security, etc. Continued vegetation management, within
recent harvest units and along roadsides, will dramatically lower fire response times and fuel loading. “Wildfire risk is
based on several factors: likelihood, intensity, exposure, and susceptibility. Understanding which factors affect your
landscape can help you prioritize risk reduction activities” (USFS 2025).
WA DNR-Wildfire Division is responsible, in partnership with local fire districts and the forestry staff, for the response and
suppression of wildfire on Utility property. The Utility pays into the Forest Fire Protection Assessment (FFPA), through
timber taxes on timber harvests and through the assessment fees of the total acreage owned. WADNR and Utility staff
also work in coordination annually for fire training and preparedness.
The Utility’s Wildfire Management Guidelines features a partnership between the City Fire Department and the Public
Works and Utilities Department to actively protect the drinking water supply and Utility assets.
The City of Bremerton Fire Response Map is shown in Figure 26.
Wellhead Protection Areas
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires every state to develop a wellhead protection program. The State Department of
Health (DOH) administers the wellhead protection program in Washington. Washington’s wellhead protection
requirements are designed to prevent contamination of groundwater used for drinking water. Public water systems must
work with local governments and regulatory agencies to develop and implement their own local wellhead protection
programs. In Washington, local wellhead protection programs must include the delineation of wellhead protection areas
that account for movement of water to the well. These areas are divided into concentric zones based upon time of travel
(time it would take for a contaminant to reach the well); typically, 6 Months, 1 Ye ar, 5 Years and 10 Years. The Utility is
required to impose restrictions upon any potential pollutant-generating activities within these zones.
The Utility updated its Wellhead Protection Program Plan in conjunction with the 2020 Water System Plan update,
resulting in updated wellhead protection area delineations. Figure 27 shows the location of the Utility’s drinking water
production wells and associated wellhead protection areas within the ownership managed under this plan. Bremerton’s
Critical Areas ordinance (BMC 20.14) and Public Works and Utilities Policy Application of Pesticides, Herbicides, or Fertilizer
in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas establish prohibited, restricted, and allowed activities in these areas to ensure sufficient
protection of groundwater supply sources.
There are also numerous monitoring wells within the ownership, and each wellhead requires protection from
contamination. Prior to any activity, the location of all wells within the area must be documented and appropriate
measures taken to prevent contamination.
Figure 26. Reserved - Confidential
44
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Figure 27. Utility Wells and Wellhead Protection Areas
Utility Uses
Activities that cause land disturbance such as road construction and maintenance or timber harvest are governed by Forest
Practices Act Rules. Compliance with these rules and the best management practices stipulated in the Forest Practices
Board Manual, as well as City codes and policies, will ensure resources are sufficiently protected. Activities in all sensitive
areas such as riparian areas, wellhead protection zones, and steep slope areas should be limited.
The City of Bremerton Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (Bremerton 2022a) outlines mechanical, biological,
chemical, and cultural methods for assessing, managing, and evaluating pest species within the Utility land that ensures
any chemical controls are used in accordance with all environmental rules and in ac cordance with manufacturer
instructions. The Utility ensures that all staff and contractors are properly licensed for pesticide application. Chemical and
fungicide methods of treatment for pest species are restricted adjacent to waterways, within wellhead protection zones,
and within 1,600 feet of Twin Lakes.
The Utility conducts soil, surface water, and groundwater monitoring as directed by the biosolids application permit;
however, required monitoring under the application permit may not capture contaminants of emerging concern not yet
regulated in biosolids such as polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that may pose a risk to the groundwater sources in those
areas.
45
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Non-Utility Related Uses
Special Uses
There is relatively little risk from existing special uses assuming users remain in compliance with governing rules and
regulations.
The lease agreement with the Department of Parks and Recreation for the Gold Mountain Golf Course includes
comprehensive and regulating conditions on water use and chemical use to ensure surface and groundwater sources are
protected.
Likewise, the lease agreement with the Bremerton Police Department for the firearms training facility includes provisions
to ensure line-of-sight firings, prohibit timber as backstops, prohibit shooting at trees, ensure no off-site incidents, require
miscellaneous firing precautions, and berm maintenance/lead recovery to protect wellhead protection areas.
The lease agreement with the Suquamish Tribe also provides specific provisions related to fish rearing activities on site
and general facility operation and maintenance.
Right-of-way and licensing agreements with regional power and natural gas providers and communication tower
companies include provisions governing environmental protections, site and right-of-way maintenance, and site
restoration, when necessary.
Increased non-utility use can bring increased risk to water and forest resources and increased need for monitoring and
management. The Utility must carefully consider potential impacts when reviewing any requests for special use of Utility
land. Appendix C provides guidance for considering new uses of Utility land.
Adjacent Land Uses
Utility property is adjacent to a variety of landowners with a range of purposes and goals. Most adjacent land ownership
includes timber, rural residential properties, and Green Mountain State Forest. This diverse set of owners creates a mix
of risks, impacts, and security concerns, particularly in areas adjacent to residential owners. Risks of fire, road degradati on,
and sanitary issues can all have a negative impact on water quality and thus, security and forest management measures
must be considered to reduce the risk of negative impact (see Adjacent Land Use Special Topic Memo in Appendix B).
Transportation Corridors
Where the Utility ownership is split by West Belfair Valley Road, Highway 3, and the US Navy railroad, major incidents
(spills, releases of chemicals, etc.) pose a risk to Utility and natural resources. The Utility should coordinate routinely
with county, state, and federal emergency management personnel to ensure all parties are aware of the sensitive
resources in the area and any potential spills or emergencies. Signs should be prominently posted along the rail and
roadways to indicate Utility land ownership and sensitive resources.
Security
Adequately protecting and securing forest landscapes can vary dramatically based on landowner objectives. The Utility is
responsible for the security and protection of approximately 7,940 acres of Utility lands, the forest ecosystems within
those lands, and the quality of drinking water provided to Bremerton water customers. The specific details of the current
security processes and procedures can be found in the Security Processes and Procedures Special Topic Memo in Appendix
B.
Implementation Plan
As it is the primary land management goal of the Utility to protect the unfiltered status of its surface water supply and to
provide protection of groundwater supplies, it is critical that the Forestry Division continue to monitor all aspects of natural
resource management and implement best management practices on Utility land to ensure water quality over time.
46
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
Forestry Staff and Equipment Resource Planning
Having a robust and knowledgeable staff that can actively maintain and monitor the current forest landscape and
infrastructure, and implement future plans, is essential for continued stewardship of Utility property. With ever increasing
regulation and complexity, it is important to annually review staff levels, performance, and production. Equipment must
be consistently maintained or purchased as necessary to ensure staff have the tools they need to effectively maintain and
manage the resources of Utility lands. All equipment resources should be evaluated annually as directed by the forestry
manager to determine if the equipment is adequate. All staffing needs should be evaluated annually or as directed by the
forestry manager. All Forestry buildings and structures should be evaluated annually or as directed by the forestry
manager to determine maintenance required. An annual evaluation of the Capital plan must be done to ensure current
and future needs are being met. All resource planning must include current and future staffing needs as described in the
Staffing Special Topic Memo in Appendix B.
Harvest Planning
Harvest planning must be undertaken in the context of Bremerton’s Goals for Utility lands:
1. The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will be managed to maintain the “unfiltered” water source status in
conjunction with maintaining the forest health.
2. The other Utility lands will be actively and adaptively managed to sustainably protect surface and groundwater
resources and maintain forest health and resiliency while also generating revenue to reduce costs for utility rate
payers.
Considering these goals, there will be less harvest in the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin than on other Utility lands.
Sustainable harvest levels for each area are described in the Sustainable Harvest Level section and should be used as a
guide when selecting and laying out harvest areas.
Harvest Method Options
The harvest methods below are included with the assumption that Utility lands are managed with an even-age
management approach. The Utility may determine which method is best for harvest while also maintaining water resource
quality.
Clearcut: All merchantable trees in harvest units are harvested at one time, except for trees left for wildlife or visual
purposes. Unmerchantable trees are often also felled to eliminate competition with the regeneration. Regeneration of
tree species is by the artificial process of hand planting seedlings. Clearcutting is the most cost efficient, productive method
for the management of Douglas-fir.
Shelterwood: The mature stand is removed in a series of two or three cuts. The early cuts are designed to improve vigor
and seed production of the remaining trees while preparing the site for new seedlings (seed cut). Mechanical ground
scarification and site preparation (felling of sub-merchantable sized stems) are common, associated silvicultural practices
especially when regenerating mid-tolerant species. The final harvest occurs when a sufficient amount of desirable
reproduction has become established and before the regeneration has reached 20 percent of its rotation age (Smith 1986).
This method provides a partial cover of either large or small trees. When the shelter becomes a hindrance to the growth
of the seedlings, rather than a benefit, it is necessary to remove the remainder of the mature stand (removal cut). This
method should be considered if the goal is to promote natural regeneration or if clearcut aesthetics are an issue. The
downside to the shelterwood method is that the trees left standing until the final cut are susceptible to wind, and it is
more costly and inefficient to reenter the stand multiple times.
Commercial Thinning/Pole Harvest: A portion of the stand is removed and when the harvest is complete a healthy,
durable stand remains for the future. To make a thinning efficient and profitable, it is necessary to balance cutting only
defective timber to promote a healthy stand and cutting enough valuable timber to meet revenue goals. When targeting
47
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
trees to harvest for utility or transmission poles, it is important to work within a prescribed outcome for the stand in terms
of basal area and tree spacing, so large gaps in the stand do not develop.
Salvage: Only dead, dying, or downed trees are harvested. This can take place in conjunction with a nearby harvest or as
a stand-alone project. Salvage operations work best in areas where the trees are consolidated. Traveling long distances
between salvage trees is inefficient and oftentimes unworkable.
McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin
Timber volume from the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will be harvested in the form of salvage, small clearcuts3 or
shelterwood cuts, and thinning. As protection of the water resource is the primary management priority in the watershed,
harvests must be planned to avoid soil impact and sediment delivery to streams and the reservoir. This can be done by
considering low impact timber harvest methods such as pre-determined skid trail planning, cable logging systems on steep
slopes, directional felling, and helicopter logging within high value areas. Harvests in the Subbasin should take place during
the typically dry time of the year and strictly administered to ensure resource protection.
Other Utility Lands
Timber volume from other Utility lands may also be harvested in the form of salvage, small clearcuts or shelterwood cuts,
and thinning, but there will be greater flexibility in terms of timing and harvest size, and more of the volume will come
from clearcuts. The majority of Utility land harvest volume and revenue will come from other Utility lands.
Planning Guidelines
A five-year harvest plan should be developed and then updated each year that considers the goals and objectives of the
Utility lands and accounts for the following:
• Resource Protection
• Forest Health
• Site Conditions
• Revenue goals
• Log Markets
• Forest Inventory
• Silviculture
• Recent Harvests
• Forest Practices Rules
Forest Inventory
Updates to the Utility’s forest inventory are critical for accurate decision making and forest planning processes, including
harvest planning, silviculture, forest health monitoring, and budgeting. An inventory cruise should occur a minimum of
every 10-years in order to have accurate inventory information for planning purposes and the update of the Management
Plan. The updated inventory will account for tree growth, changes in species composition, harvest updates, potential
acquisition, forest health changes, and changes in overall stand value.
Property Boundaries
Accurate identification of property boundaries is critical for defining the land base, preventing disputes with neighbors,
ensuring sustainable harvest practices, compliance with forest practices rules, accurate timber assessments, and for the
protection of the forest resource. Identification of accurate property boundaries are best determined by a licensed
3 In relative terms Bremerton clearcuts, which have historically averaged 22-acres in size, have been “small” in contrast to 240-acres,
which is the largest clearcut allowed under the forest practices rules.
48
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
surveyor. It is recommended that the Utility formally survey property boundaries, when necessary, as part of the timber
sale process or when other operations occur near property boundaries. All surveys should be officially recorded with the
County Surveyor. Field inspections and updates to the monumentation of property lines should be conducted every 3 to
5 years, or as needed, with fresh paint, flagging tape, boundary tags, and boundary posts.
Reforestation
As mentioned in the Silviculture section, reforestation is one of the most important aspects of sustainable forest
management, as it is establishing the forest life cycle and will in large part determine the success of a forest landscape.
Planning starts before timber harvest occurs. Early in the harvest planning process, plans should be made for procurement
of seedlings. Seedlings may be purchased on the open market, ready to plant, or sown at the nursery from seed, depending
on seedling availability and the harvest planning timeline.
Once the unit is harvested, conduct any necessary site preparation to prepare the site for planting. Planting should occur
as soon as the site is ready. If herbicides are not used to control brush it is essential to plant the unit as soon as possible
as the trees will be in competition with shrubs and grass that also occupy the site. The typical planting season for western
Washington is January to April but is subject to change depending on weather and elevation. Below is a checklist to aid in
reforestation planning and implementation.
Reforestation Planning Tips for Success
Before Harvest
o Contact nursery and initiate sowing request.
o Choose tree species and seed zones that are suited to the following site conditions:
o Elevation
o Precipitation
o Aspect
o Site Preparation
o Disease/Insects Potential
After Harvest
o Site preparation as needed.
o Selection of planting contractor to plant the harvest area.
o Reforest during the first planting season after harvest if possible (January-April).
o Use forester or trusted contractor to oversee proper seedling storage, seedling handling, and planting procedures.
o Install animal damage protection if necessary.
o Generally, plant no less than 300 trees per acre, evenly spaced to account for mortality.
o Monitor reforestation units annually. Units should be considered free to grow if they have adequate stocking for
two consecutive years.
Nonnative Species Treatment
To protect water quality on Utility lands, the Forestry Division limits the use of chemical treatment for nonnative species.
This has resulted in an ongoing challenge with Scotch broom dominating certain regeneration units within Utility lands.
Scotch broom is a nonnative species that was introduced to the west in the 1800’s from Europe as a means for erosion
control and for ornamental purposes. Scotch broom rapidly and frequently outcompetes native trees and plants, especially
in disturbed areas. Scotch broom typically blooms in June and spreads by seed dispersal. Seeds can be dispersed up to 20
feet and each plant can spread as many as 10,000 seeds a year. The seed can remain viable in the soil from 5 to 60 years.
(King County 2013) Once established, Scotch broom is incredibly difficult to remove from the landscape.
The Utility’s primary method of treating Scotch broom is in the form of mechanical slashing. This requires a hand crew to
manually cut each stalk of the plant off at the base with a chainsaw. This method of treatment is very labor intensive and
49
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
costly compared to chemical treatment. Multiple treatments are usually required before the planted trees are able to
outcompete the nonnative Scotch broom within a site. The average cost of mechanical slashing can range from $150-$250
per acre depending on the amount of Scotch broom, site, terrain, access, etc. This should be considered when selecting
harvest units and factored into the annual silviculture plan and budget. Silviculture budgeting should also include future
treatments in areas where there is Scotch broom nearby or close to public roads. Note that herbicide treatments are
allowed only in certain areas of the Utility ownership. Refer to the City of Bremerton Integrated Vegetation Management
Plan for further details.
Road Maintenance
As the landowner, road maintenance is the ongoing responsibility of the Utility. Using Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and ensuring ditches, culverts, water bars, road surface material, and energy dissipaters are functioning is crucial for
resource protection and longevity of the road infrastructure. Other BMPs for maintaining a functioning road system may
include the use of locked gates to prevent unwanted use or access, not road grading during excessively wet or dry periods,
installing or replacing culverts during the dry season, inspecting road surfaces prior to increased traffic, marking culverts
before road work, limiting road use during extreme weather events, controlling roadside vegetation, and minimizing
exposed soil. Paying particular attention to these issues before, during, and after forest activity is critical. Maintaining road
access throughout the Utility ownership is particularly crucial for adequate fire and emergency response.
Bridge and Culvert Monitoring, Maintenance, and Replacement
All culverts and bridges should be marked in the field as is appropriate with paint, flagging, or a t-post. A semiannual
inventory/inspection should be conducted on all culverts and an annual inventory/inspection should be conducted on all
bridges. The typical lifespan of a railcar style bridge is approximately 50 years with proper maintenance. Material type,
volume of traffic, design, and weather conditions can significantly extend or reduce the typical lifespan of a forest bridge.
Monitoring of any previous culvert project or any new road construction or reconstruction activities should be done
annually and after major weather events. A large amount of Utility land culverts are corrugated metal pipes that were
installed pre-RMAP (before 2001) and are reaching the end of life. The typical lifespan of a plastic culvert pipe is 50 to 75
years. Proper installation, regular maintenance, and traffic loads can significantly alter the average life span of a typical
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) corrugated pipe.
Any structures in or over fish bearing streams must be designed to ensure proper fish passage, erosion control, and long-
term structural integrity, and to withstand 100-year flood events. All stream crossing structure construction requires a
Forest Practices Application/Notification (FPA/N), through WADNR. Any installation or removal of a structure over a fish
bearing stream requires engineered plans be submitted with the FPA/N. Typically, an FPA/N takes 30 days for approval,
while some hydrologic plans may take an additional 30 days for approval, following review from WDFW. Planning around
these review timelines and instream work periods must be considered when planning bridge or culvert maintenance and
replacement. Further details and requirements about crossing maintenance and replacement can be found in the
Washington Forest Practices rules.
Stream Typing
Water typing is used by the WADNR to properly classify streams and other water bodies. This process is used to determine
fish presence, permanent flow, and stream or waterbody size. The WADNR forest practices division maintains and updates
all water type maps and data to show both field-verified, and non-field verified water data. The stream data used and
maintained by the WADNR is derived from a combination of computer modeling and field observations. The model is
based on multiple feature attributes such as stream slope, fish presence, modeled habitat, size, and drainage basin size.
It is the responsibility of the Utility as the forest landowner to determine in the field, the type of any regulated waters as
identified in the forest practices rules within 200 feet of the proposed activity, prior to submitting an FPA/N (WADNR
2021). This is also the case with any installation or replacement of any stream crossing structure for road construction or
50
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
maintenance. All stream types must be evaluated in the field prior to any forest activities that requires an FPA/N from
WADNR. It would also benefit the Utility to field verify and GPS streams within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin to assist
with planning and water monitoring.
Biosolids Management
The Utility continues to utilize the biosolids program that was established in 1992, with the Forestry Division overseeing
the application and management of biosolids. This program provides the Utility with multiple benefits including increased
tree growth within the application site and significant reduction in the cost of disposal of solids from wastewater
treatment, saving the Wastewater Utility approximately $100,000-$200,000 per year. Unless determined to not be
beneficial at some future time, this plan should continue to be implemented annually by the Forestry Division at the
established application rates that are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State
Department of Ecology. The current allowable rates and application sites can be found in the 2024 Biosolids Annual Report
(Department of Ecology 2025). The application rates are site specific and are applied in specific application areas within
the biosolid sites.
Managing the stands within the biosolids application area will likely have an altered harvest schedule and silviculture plan.
Due to the increased time invested in stand management, adaptive harvest scheduling should be used. This should include
potentially extending rotation ages within the application areas due to historic and planned thinning, maximizing nutrient
retention within application sites, and maximizing application areas within the permitted biosolid site. Other
considerations for harvest scheduling of the biosolids area may include timing of applications, adjacency issues within the
application area, and an increase in the complexity of harvest planning. Further research should also be undertaken to
look at increased carbon storage by extending rotation age and continuing to apply biosolids.
Due to increased nitrogen from biosolids applications, a dramatic increase in competing brush and vegetation is likely to
occur. Delaying biosolids application until after the new stand has been well established post-harvest will likely dictate the
level of reforestation success. Since managing competing vegetation is limited to mostly mechanical treatment, increased
planning well in advance of reforestation will be necessary. Planting trees in the planting season immediately following
harvest will increase the likelihood of survival and bolster the establishment of the planted seedlings.
To optimize the biosolids program, additional considerations around stand management must be considered annually
when determining the harvest schedule, reforestation plan, vegetation management, and application plan.
Building Construction and Maintenance
There are several buildings that the Forestry Division utilizes and for which it is responsible. These include the McKenna
Falls Office located at 9600 McKenna Falls Rd, the biosolids ponds and structures, the Roll-Up building at the Utility pipe
yard located at 4398 W. Belfair Valley Rd, and the Forestry Storage Building located at 4320 W. Belfair Valley Rd. These
buildings are used by the Department of Public Works and the Forestry Division. For all buildings that are the responsibility
of the Forestry Division, building improvements and new building construction have been budgeted and are identified in
the Capital Improvement Plan section and 20-year Capital Improvement Plan Special Topic Memo in Appendix B.
Ongoing Gap Analysis
An ongoing gap analysis utilizing clear, realistic goals and asset management, should be conducted annually by the Forestry
Division. This will allow the Forestry Division to identify any discrepancies where implementation, resources, or systems
fall short of expectations laid out in the forest management plan. This process will help to develop solutions by creating
targeted strategies to address gaps, such as through training, process improvements, or resource allocation. This process
will monitor progress, evaluate the effectiveness of corrective measures, determine necessary adjustments, and ensure
alignment with the Utility’s goals. The ongoing nature of the analysis ensures that the Utility remain adaptable and
proactive with their forest management.
51
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
The annual results of the analysis will help to inform the Forestry Division in the planning stages of the annual harvest
schedules, road maintenance/construction plans, silviculture planning, capital improvement planning, and staffing
resource allocations.
Adaptive Management Options
Adaptive management, as defined by the Washington Forest Protection Association as “a process of gathering and using
scientific information to evaluate and improve forest management decisions and practices on the ground. It is a way of
monitoring best management practices and regulations to ensure the objectives of restoring wildlife habitat and
protecting water quality are being met. If these objectives are not met through existing practices, changes will be made
based on scientific research” (WFPA n.d.). While adaptive management is being done at the state level with tools like the
Washington Forest Practices Act, Forest and Fish Law, and continued forest management research conducted in federal,
state and private landscapes, the Utility should regularly review their own management strategies in the context of their
primary objectives. This can be done by ensuring forestry staff completes continuing education and research on current
forestry topics such as climate change and advancing technology, and by reviewing measurable outcomes of management
decisions.
The Forest Practices Act states, “The adaptive management process shall incorporate best available science and
information, include protocols and standards, regular monitoring, a scientific peer review process, and provide
recommendations to the board on proposed changes to forest practices rules to meet timber industry viability and salmon
recovery” (RCW 76.09.370(7)).
Implementation of adaptive management into Utility forest management will be the result of problem solving with best
management practices. By prioritizing items such as management plan updates every 10 years, continuing education,
collaboration with federal, state, and private forest managers, and monitoring and adapting to the changing forest
landscapes, adaptive management will become engrained in Utility land management.
Forestry Capital Improvement Plan
Capital improvement planning is critical for Utility land management to effectively manage, assess, and develop assets
and infrastructure. Within the Utility’s ownership there is a robust road system, biosolids storage sites and trails, forestry
equipment, storage facilities, office space, a Forestry Division compound, forest gates, and other assets that the Forestry
Division manages and maintains. Forestry capital cost and future planning is done through the Forestry Division. All capital
costs associated with Water Utility-owned properties and facilities, including forestry assets, are part of the master 20-
year Water Utility Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained in the Water System Plan. The 20-year plan developed within
the Capital Improvement Plan Special Topic Memo in Appendix B includes only those assets associated with the Forestry
Division.
Water Rate Analysis
A water rate analysis was conducted to evaluate rates by rate modeling, assumptions, and future needs. A financial plan
was developed as a multi-year rate strategy that generates sufficient revenue to cover Utility operating costs and execute
the capital program. The water utility financial plan developed as part of the 2022 rate study update was used as the
foundation for the financial evaluation completed as part of this plan. Refer to the Revenue and Water Rate Impacts
Special Topic Memo in Appendix B for more information on data updates to the Forestry CIP and impacts to revenue from
different harvest levels.
Forest Roads
The Utility Forestry Division is responsible for the maintenance and management of approximately 56.6 miles of rock and
dirt spur forest roads. There is also a total of 26.4 miles of biosolids trails located on Utility property. To maintain this road
system, annual strategic planning must occur, based on the Utility’s existing RMAP and CIP, while considering the amount
52
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
of funds that are available from the timber program. Road usage, upcoming forest activities, and achieving management
objectives should all be considered when planning for annual capital improvements.
Forest Culverts
There are approximately 256 mapped culverts on Utility lands, varying in size from 18 to 66-inches in diameter. The Utility
maintains culvert and bridge data including latitude and longitude, road location, elevation, diameter, length, and culvert-
type. There is a total of 36 culverts that are identified to be replaced due to being undersized or ineffective. As mentioned
in the roads and RMAP section, a large portion of the culverts are corrugated metal pipes installed pre–RMAP (before
2001). They are currently not identified as needing to be replaced but will likely require replacement in the near future.
Annual updates must occur to culvert inventories and culvert status to strategically plan replacements or maintenance.
Annual or semiannual updates to the culvert inventory will allow the Forestry Division to prioritize maintenance or repairs
needed, along with any timber harvest-related culvert work.
Forestry Buildings
There are currently seven buildings the Forestry Division manages. The McKenna Falls Forestry Office, Pump Station #1
Storage Building located at 4320 W. Belfair Valley Rd, the Roll Up building at the Utility Pipe Yard, and four Biosolid Storage
ponds with roof covers. Any improvements or maintenance that may need to occur within the next 20 years on these
buildings, along with any future plans for new construction can be found within the Capital Improvement Plan Special
Topic Memo in Appendix B.
Forestry Gates and Additional Security Measures
The Forestry Division currently manages 37 gates within the Utility’s property. Each gate has specific cost maintenance
and an upkeep amount based on use. High-traffic gates and gates that are near dense urban areas will likely have larger
and more frequent maintenance costs and will need to be replaced more often. Annual tracking and updating of the status
and condition of all the forestry gates, along with projected use, will allow the Forestry Division to better budget and plan
for future maintenance and replacement needs. Additional security measures may become necessary to sufficiently
secure Utility land and assets. This may include additional fencing, specifically around high traffic areas or areas of concern.
Fence construction and maintenance is labor intensive and costly. More detail can be found within the Security Processes
and Procedures Special Topic Memo in Appendix B.
Forest Bridges
The Forestry Division is responsible for a total of nine bridges. The bridges vary in size, age, and bridge type. Annual
assessment should be completed by the Forestry Division to ensure maintenance is scheduled, and to maximize the
longevity of the bridge. More information about the bridges the Forestry Division manages and about the recommended
bridge maintenance and replacement can be found in the Capital Improvement Plan Special Topic Memo in Appendix B.
53
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
References
City of Bremerton. 2023. Utility and Land Management Advisory Committee. Charter and Operating Guidelines.
City of Bremerton (Bremerton). 2022a. City of Bremerton Integrated Vegetation Management Plan.
City of Bremerton (Bremerton). 2022b. Department of Public Works & Utilities 2020 Water System Plan.
City of Bremerton & Kitsap County (Bremerton and Kitsap). 2013. Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization & Framework
Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/Gorst_Watershed_Plan_City%20Council%20Adopted_2016010617521
22414.pdf
Department of Ecology. 2025. 2024 Annual Biosolids Report. Bremerton, Washington.
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., Washington Timberland Management, Inc., Northwest Aerial Reconnaissance,
Inc, and Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (EES et al.) 1996. Utility Land Management Plan, City of Bremerton Department of
Public Works and Utilities, Volumes I and II.
Hipple, K.W. 2011. USDA NRCS Washington Soils Atlas.
King County. 2013. King County Noxious Weed Control Program Weed Alert Scotch Broom. Accessed:
www.nwcb.wa.gov/images/weeds/Scotch_Broom_factsheet_King.pdf
Lusignan Forestry, Inc. 2016. 10-Year Guidelines Analysis for Sustainability of Timber Harvest.
May, C.W., and G. Peterson. 2003. 2003 Kitsap salmonid refugia report: Landscape assessment and conservation
prioritization of freshwater and nearshore salmonid habitat in Kitsap County. Prepared for Kitsap County, Port Orchard,
WA. October 31, 2003
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2024. NOAA Fisheries’ Species and Habitat Web Application.
West Coast Region. URL: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/species-and-habitat-app. Seattle, WA. Accessed
April 2025.
NW Biosolids. 2018. Forestry Fact Sheet. Accessed:
chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nwbiosolids.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/1805_9217_nwbio_fact_forestry_optimized.pdf
Powell, D. C. 2013. Silvicultural Activities: Description and Terminology - WHITE PAPER F14-SO-WP-SILV-34.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413732.pdf
Semler, K. 2019. Forest Health and Forest Management Practices Recommendations. School of Environmental and Forest
Sciences, University of Washington. Master of Forest Resources Final Project.
Smith, D.M. 1986. The Practice of Silviculture (8th edition). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
The Rural Technology Initiative-University of Washington, City of Bremerton Public Works and Utilities Forestry Division,
and Washington Timberland Management, Inc. (UW). 2019. Forest Land Management Analysis for the City of Bremerton
Department of Public Works and Utilities.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Assessment of ESA-listed species and critical habitat occurrence in the Action
Area using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) tool. URL: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
54
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2025. Wildfire Risk to Communities website. Accessed April 2025 at:
https://wildfirerisk.org/reduce-risk/
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Laminated Root Rot in North America. Resource Bulletin PNW -GTR-349. April 1995.
U.S. Forest Service. 1981. Laminated Root Rot of Western Conifers. Accessed:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_042852.pdf
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). n.d. Forest Service Silviculture. Accessed:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/vegetation-management/silviculture/index.shtml
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Priority Habitat and Species Smelt Spawning Dataset.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017a. Priority Habitat and Species Wildlife Survey and Data
Management Database Points.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017b. Priority Habitat and Species Wildlife Survey and Data
Management Database Polygons.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Priority Habitat and Species Salmonid Stock Inventory GIS
Dataset.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). 2021. Forest Practices Illustrated, A Simplified guide to Forest
Practices Rules in Washington State. Accessed: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/fp_fpi_complete.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). 2017. WA Soils GIS Dataset. Accessed: https://data-
wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/wadnr::wa-soils/about
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). 2011. Washington Forest Practices Road Maintenance and
Abandonment Plan Information and Instructions. Accessed:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/fp_form_rmap_infoinstructions.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). 2002. Washington Tree Seed Transfer Zones. Accessed:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/lm_wfn_seedzone_book.pdf
Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA). N.d. Adaptive Management in “Learning by Doing”. Accessed:
https://www.wfpa.org/natural-resources-conservation/adaptive-management/
55
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
APPENDIX A
Stand Examination Plan
Standlister Document Excluded from this Appendix for Confidentiality
56
City of Bremerton
2024 Inventory Cruise Instructions
INTRODUCTION
MB&G will cruise a specified list of stands within the City of Bremerton’s forestland.
The purpose of the cruise is to create a stand-based forest inventory for all stands on the
property, which will yield statistically sound estimates of typical forest inventory metrics
and provide the information necessary to calculate sustainable harvest levels.
CRUISE DESIGN
Cruise Map and Plot Layout
MB&G will provide a vicinity map for the property to aid in general location of the
stands, and individual stand maps are provided to show the plot locations. Each cruise
map includes plots, roads, water features, sections, townships, contour lines, and stand
boundaries.
Stands 1 to 24 years old
At each plot, collect data for all live trees/seedlings using a fixed radius plot. Choose a
plot size that renders an average of 5-8 trees per fixed radius plot (Table 1). Count trees
by species and diameter class, and unless there are major differences, record the average
height for the species/diameter group. For those trees less than 4.5 feet tall, record a
diameter class of zero. For hardwood clumps, record the three most dominant sprouts on
a stump. Ignore large trees left from a previous harvest.
Table 1. Fixed Radius Plot Sizes
>>>> Do not establish fixed radius plots in distinguishable, but unmapped leave areas.
If it is necessary to relocate a mapped plot to avoid a conflict with this rule, the cruiser
must backtrack the appropriate distance along the direction of travel and make note of
the new plot location.
Fixed Plot Radius
(ft)
1/100th acre 11.8
1/75th acre 13.6
1/50th acre 16.7
1/20th acre 26.3
57
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
Stands greater than or equal to 25 years old
Tree data will be collected on a variable radius plot. Using an American Scale Relaskop,
choose a BAF for the stand that renders an average of 5-8 trees per variable radius plot.
Only one BAF may be used within a stand, although the BAF can change from stand to
stand. Each plot will be a full circle sweep, sighting trees at DBH. The “prism sweep”
should proceed from due north in a clockwise manner, recording all “in” trees in the
order they are encountered. Record all live trees 5.0 inches DBH and larger.
For trees less than 5.0-inches DBH, use a 1/100th-acre fixed-radius-plot. Count trees by
species and diameter class, and unless there are major differences, record the average
height for the species/diameter group. For those trees less than 4.5 feet tall, record a
diameter class of zero. For hardwood clumps, record the three most dominant sprouts on
a stump.
Borderline Trees
If a tree is not obviously in or out of a plot, the cruiser will measure horizontal distance
from plot center to the estimated center of the tree. The limiting distance should be
calculated using the plot radius factor (PRF) corresponding to the appropriate BAF
(Table 2). Multiply the PRF by DBH to calculate the limiting distance. If the calculated
limiting distance is greater than the distance from plot center to the center of the tree, the
tree is considered an “in” tree.
Table 2. Basal area factors (BAF) and their associated plot radius factors (PRF).
BAF PRF
20 1.945
22.50 1.833
27.78 1.650
33.61 1.500
40 1.375
46.94 1.269
54.44 1.179
62.50 1.100
71.11 1.031
80.27 0.971
LD = DBH * PRF
Roads and Streams
Plots will not be established in mapped roads or road right of ways. If a plot falls within a
mapped road or road right of way, drop the plot. Note that the plot was dropped because
it was within a mapped road or road right of way. If a plot falls within the forested part of
a stand but is within one tree-length of a mapped road right of way, then the plot should
be measured using the Edge Plot specifications described below.
Most major streams have been delineated from the stand boundaries so there should be
minimal occurrence of plots falling in a stream. Plots that do fall in or near streams
within stand boundaries should be considered valid plots and measured accordingly.
58
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
Edge Plots
If edge plots occur, do not avoid them, as the edge represents a considerable portion of
any stand. For example, in a square 40-acre (20-chains x 20-chains) area, 20% of the total
40-acres is within one chain from the stand edge. Trees growing near the edge of a stand
(such as near a road) grow differently than trees within the stand, especially if the
surrounding area is non-forested. It is important to sample these trees during a cruise. If a
plot falls on or near the edge, use the Walkthrough Method to establish the plot. Do not
move the plot if it is on or near the edge of the stand.
The Walkthrough Method
• Establish the plot exactly where the plot center falls and measure and record all
trees falling in the plot that are inside the stand boundary.
• For any “in” tree, measure the distance (“d” in Figure 1 below) from the sample
point to the tree.
• Duplicate the distance, “d,” on the other side of the tree towards the stand
boundary.
• If you are outside the stand boundary at the end of this duplicated distance, record
the tree twice. If you are inside the stand boundary at the end of this duplicated
distance, record the tree once.
Figure 1: The Walkthrough Method
59
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
Monumentation
Plot centers will be monumented with a pink wire flag firmly placed in the ground. Four
strips of red-and-white-striped flagging shall be hung over the plot and the following
information should be recorded on one of the flags, in indelible ink:
• Stand #
• Plot #
• Date
• Cruiser Initials
CRUISE MEASUREMENTS
Tree Data
Table 3. Tree data to be collected on fixed-radius-plots.
Item Frequency Notes
Species Every tree 2-character code (Table 8)
Tally Every tree Tally the number of trees by species and diameter
class – Maximum of 10
Diameter Class Every diameter
class
Group tally to the nearest 1-inch diameter class. For
trees less than 4.5 feet tall, record a diameter of zero-
inches.
Component
Code Every tree See Table 5
Average
Height
Every
species/diameter
class
Determine the average height of each
species/diameter class combination.
Live Crown
Ratio
Every tree
greater than or
equal to 4.5 feet
tall
Determine the average crown ratio by species and
diameter class for trees that are greater than or equal
to 4.5 feet tall.
Table 4. Tree data to be collected on variable radius plots.
Item Frequency Notes
Species Every tree 2-character code (Table 8)
Tally Every tree Only enter value greater than 1
for Edge-Plot trees.
DBH Every tree Nearest Inch
Component Code Every Tree See Table 5
Live Crown Ratio Same trees as measured for
total height Nearest 10% ocular estimate
Total Height
1st and 3rd trees per species on
each plot and trees with defect,
which impacts total height.
Measure total heights across the
range of diameter classes for all
species to the nearest 1.0-foot.
60
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
Item Frequency Notes
Broken Top Height All trees with a broken top Record in the Total height
column to the nearest 1.0-foot
% Defect & Breakage
by Tree Thirds
(Bottom, Middle, Top)
Every tree with defect
(No total height necessary)
Nearest 10%
Minimum Piece = 12-feet
Merchantable Top = 5-inches
Table 5. Tree Component Codes
Comp Code Description Remarks
.. Typical Live
Tree
C. 100% Cull Tree
Every log in the tree will be assigned to cull by the
cruise compilation software, resulting in zero net
volume.
BT Broken Top
Tree
Record height to point of breakage in the total height
column.
Broken Top Trees
If a broken top has re-grown to a diameter at least half that of the diameter at the break,
the tree should no longer be considered a broken top tree. Record defect related to the
break accordingly. For trees with an actual broken top, enter a Component Code of BT
and measure the height to the point where the top broke.
Defect & Breakage
Collect defect and breakage by tree thirds on all trees that contain defect or may
potentially lose merchantable volume by breaking in the tree felling process.
When determining defect, do not think in terms of merchantability, but rather in terms of
recovery. If portions of a tree will remain in the woods after harvest, subtract volume
from the tree as defect. Examples of this situation are tops that will break when felled, or
straight, but short “long-butts” that are left when defect is cut out above the sound wood,
and what remains is a “long-butt” section that is too short to haul to the mill as a sawlog.
Wood that is short or crooked, but sound enough for pulp must also be treated as cull
material (i.e., “Pulp is cull”). Minimum piece = 12’, Merch Top = 5”
61
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
QUALITY CONTROL
Data Control
Cruise data must be appropriately relayed from the field to the field supervisor in a timely
manner, in order to prevent any data loss or misplacement.
Check-Cruising
Quality is best achieved through check-cruising, to ensure that data are collected
consistently and accurately throughout the duration of the project. Check-cruising will be
done early in the project to identify and remedy any training deficiencies before they
become a problem and will be conducted periodically throughout the project to ensure
quality standards are always being met. Check-cruising is to be used as a teaching tool to
ensure that the cruise instructions, measurement standards and other protocols are
understood, and that work is consistent from cruiser to cruiser.
Cruisers are not told when their work will be checked and understand that their work may
be checked at any time. The check-cruiser will visit each cruiser’s established plots and
conduct their own field measurements.
It is important to note that tree by tree and plot by plot comparisons are difficult to use
when deciding if a cruiser’s work is acceptable or unacceptable. For example, both the
cruiser and check-cruiser must be on the exact same plot center and some observations
such a percent defect are subjective. Therefore, while tree-by-tree and plot-by-plot
comparisons are useful for teaching and training purposes, a cruiser’s work will be
considered acceptable if the work is within the tolerances outlined in Tables 6 and 7, for a
batch of five plots.
Plot Location Tolerance
The first plot established in a stand must be within 100 feet (horizontal) radius of the
location as depicted on the stand map. All other plots must be located within plus or
minus 20% of the plot spacing, in terms of both the linear distance and the lateral
distance perpendicular to the plot line.
Table 6. Cruising tolerances and acceptable rates of error.
Measurement Tolerance (+/-) Maximum Rate of Error
Number of tally trees Correct tally of trees within plot 0%
Tree Species Correct species identification 0%
DBH Diameters measured with an
accuracy of +/- 1.0 in. 5%
Total tree height Heights measured with an
accuracy of +/- 10%. 10%
Broken top height Heights measured with an
accuracy of +/- 10%. 10%
Tree Component code Correct tree component code 0%
% defect Record % defect with an
accuracy of +/- 10% 10%
62
City of Bremerton Cruise Instructions
MB&G - February 2024
Table 7. Per Acre Check-Cruise Tolerances
Per Acre Attribute Tolerance
(+/-)
Live trees, by species 5%
Live basal area, by species 5%
Net volume, by species 5%
In the event of substandard work by any cruiser, the following steps will be taken:
• On-site training and review of the instructions and protocols
• Visit plots where measurements disagreed and discuss remedial action.
• Return to cruise plots to redo some or all of the measurements.
The check-cruiser will determine how much of a cruisers work may need to be redone. If
substandard work continues, the check-cruiser and Project Manager will decide if a
cruiser needs to be removed from the project.
Table 8. Species Codes
Code Species
AC Alaska Yellow Cedar
BC Cottonwood Species
BM Bigleaf Maple
CA Cascara
CH Cherry Species
CQ Chinquapin
CX Other Conifer
DF Douglas-Fir
GF Grand Fir
HX Other Hardwood
MA Madrone
MH Mountain Hemlock
NF Noble Fir
OA Oregon Ash
OO Oak species
PC Port Orford Cedar
PD Pacific Dogwood
PP Ponderosa Pine
PY Pacific Yew
QA Quaking Aspen
RA Red Alder
RC Western Red Cedar
SF Silver Fir
SS Sitka Spruce
WF White Fir
WH Western Hemlock
WI Willow
WL Western Larch
XX Unknown Species
63
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
APPENDIX B
Special Topic Memorandums
Security Processes and Procedures Special Topic Memorandum excluded from this Appendix for Confidentiality
64
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.
Date: 5/27/2025
Re: Special Topic: Adjacent Land Use
Introduction
The City of Bremerton Utility Lands (Utility Lands) are centrally located, east of the town of Gorst,
Washington, in Kitsap County, Townships 23 and 24-North and Ranges 1-West and 1-East. Of the 7,940
acres of Utility Lands, approximately 7,713-acres are in a central block, surrounding the McKenna Falls
Intake Subbasin and Union River Reservoir. Approximately 180 acres of Utility land surround the Anderson
Creek Wellfield. This wellfield also provides a significant source of clean drinking water to the City of
Bremerton. Restriction of public access to the City’s ownership of the water source is critical for protection
and effective management of clean drinking water for the City of Bremerton. This memo will discuss
adjacent land use and what steps the Utility can take to continue to protect and steward their land base
and drinking water.
Background Information
The City’s Utility Lands have a variety of adjacent landowners, varying in land use and management. The
bulk of the adjacent ownership includes a mix of industrial timber properties and Green Mountain State
Forest, which is managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). There is a
component of rural residential properties, primarily located adjacent to the southern and eastern border
of the Utility lands. These developed residential areas, specifically around the Anderson Creek Wellfield
and North of Heins Lake, pose higher risks of potential trespassing, damage to utility property, and fire
risk due to a greater element of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
Most of the adjacent landowners near the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin are industrial timber properties
and Washington DNR lands. This adds a wider layer of protection around the Union River Reservoir.
Though the neighboring ownership is outside the Utility’s control, it consists of a larger contiguous block
of forest ownership that the Utility can effectively collaborate with for the continued protection and
stewardship of clean drinking water.
The area directly south of the Union River Basin is primarily rural residential properties. The neighboring
property northeast of Heins lake, north of Jarstad Park, and surrounding Anderson Creek Wellfield consist
of high-density suburban homes. Figure 1 shows the adjacent lands surrounding the main block of the
Utility Lands. The areas to the South and East of the Utility lands will become increasingly challenging for
the City’s forestry division due to multiple neighbors, mixed use properties, and varying levels of
partnership between landowners.
65
The 180-acre block of Utility land that surrounds the Anderson Creek Well field is primarily high-density
residential properties and also has the potential for increased risk of trespassing, vandalism, wildfire, and
damage to utility infrastructure. Increased security evaluations near this area are necessary to ensure the
same level of protection as the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin.
Figure 1. Owners Adjacent to City Property
Issue Assessment
The current land base protection and policies set in place by the Forestry Division and Water Utility
Watershed Control Program will continue to ensure execution of the key management objective of
drinking water protection. Potential future issues may include changes to the land use and development
surrounding the Utility Lands, which could result in increased urban development. An increase in WUI
poses several potential problems for the City of Bremerton. The uptick in development adjacent to the
Utility Lands is problematic due to the likelihood for increased issues with trespassing, vandalism, theft,
threat of wildfire, dumping, and other human activity associated with the WUI.
66
Forest Management in the WUI is an ever-increasing challenge for land managers. As more of the public
engages with and establishes residences in and around rural areas, managing for the increased wildfire
risk becomes particularly important. There are many different methods that can be utilized to mitigate
the increased wildfire risk caused by an increase in WUI. Many of these methods are already being utilized
by the Forestry Division such as public access restrictions, security patrols, locked gates, maintenance of
established roads and infrastructure for greater access and better response time and having an
established fire protection plan as outlined in the Water Utility’s Watershed Control Program. Other
recommendations to manage for WUI are defensible space on utility land, neighbor education and
collaboration, and education on home and community defensible space near Utility lands.
While changing land use laws and increased urban development may be objectives of the City and County,
it will create major challenges for the protection and stewardship of the Utility Lands and water supply as
landowners within the Interface have conflicting objectives. An increase in WUI and development around
the Utility lands will require additional security and updates to infrastructure (as mentioned in the security
special topic). Figures 2 and 3 show a newer housing development (Soundview Estates) that borders Utility
Lands, northeast of Heins Lake. This single development site currently has more than 300 lots within 900
yards of a main access point to Utility lands. Ongoing community outreach will be crucial to educate the
public on watershed management and the importance of watershed protection, and to collaborate on
security in terms of reporting trespassing and suspicious activities.
Figure 2. County Tax lot Map of Soundview Estates and Surrounding Landowners.
67
Figure 3. Photo of an access gate leading into Soundview Estates.
Findings and Recommendations
The forestry division should continue to collaborate with their neighbors in the context of watershed
management, where the main priority is protection of the clean drinking water supply that the McKenna
Falls Intake Subbasin and Anderson Creek Wellfield provides for the City of Bremerton. This includes
working with the Washington DNR, industrial tree farms, Department of Defense, utility companies, tribal
entities, and all rural/urban residential areas near Utility Lands. Education plays a very important role with
all landowners, especially within the residential areas of the WUI. Figure 4 shows (purple) highlighted
properties that are deemed “developable”. These specific properties should be considered for acquisition
if possible.
68
Figure 4 Removed for Confidentiality
Figure 4. Map of “Developable” Properties that abut Utility Property
All neighboring lands abutting utility property should be monitored for potential land acquisition, which
would expand the Utility lands and increase security and resource protection and provide for more
effective watershed management. Acquiring neighboring properties, via land trades or direct purchase, is
the most effective way to control and predict activity within and near the Bremerton Utility Lands, with
an emphasis on properties near McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and Anderson Creek Wellfield.
69
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.
Date: 5/27/2025
Re: Special Topic: Kitsap Lake to Jarstad Park Trail
Introduction
A shared-use trail was proposed between the south end of Kitsap Lake in Kitsap County to Otto Jarstad
Park in Bremerton (See Figure 1). This memorandum reviews the potential impacts the proposed trail
route would have on security, the City’s unfiltered surface water status, current operations, and staffing.
This special topic memorandum also identifies security enhancements that must be considered should
the City and the County choose to construct the trail.
Background Information
The initial location of this proposed trail was put forth in 2013, in the County’s Non-Motorized Facility
Plan, by the Kitsap County Non-Motorized Committee and the West Sound Cycle Club. The total proposed
trail is roughly 3.16 miles. Approximately 1.99 miles of the proposed trail bisects City of Bremerton Utility
Lands. Kitsap County led a preliminary feasibility study, performed by Fischer Bouma Partnership (FBP) in
2018, which included a City liaison who sat on the committee. The study was to better understand the
proposed area, determine best planned route, and investigate alternatives and costs for the proposal.
Many of the details in this Special Topic paper are referencing the findings of the 2018 Feasibility Study.
The 2018 Feasibility Study proposed a design strategy that the authors felt would minimize costs and
disturbance to the Utility Lands. To achieve these goals, the study adopted the strategy of using existing
logging roads (2000 Road) as the base of the shared-use path. The proposed path would be designed for
an 18-mph speed, be either 10 or 14-feet wide, paved with a 2% maximum cross slope, and two-foot soft
surface shoulders (typically gravel). Areas of disturbance in the corridor would range from 14-feet to 40-
feet in width per the 2018 Feasibility Study by FBP. The project would also require the installation of a
bridge.
The cost estimate of $4 million dollars did not include any grant funding but did account for the
construction and design of the trail in such a way to maintain eligibility for grant funding in the future.
Grant funding qualifications included specific maintenance, security/enforcement, and operations
specifications, and a management plan.
70
Figure 1. 2018 Feasibility Study Proposed Trail
71
Issue Assessment
Conflicting Use:
The 2018 Feasibility study noted some potential issues with the proposed trail system. Some of these
issues specific to the City Utility Lands include the shared road/path on existing logging roads, the need
for additional survey work, Navy right-of-way easements, conflicts with forestry operations, potential for
needed transfer of ownership, upgraded facilities, increased staff and maintenance and potentially other
unforeseen costs which are discussed in more detail under Cost.
Unfortunately, the study did not consider all the uses of the 2000 Road and major utility infrastructure
that is aligned with, adjacent to, or crosses the road. The 2000 Road provides access to Water Utility staff
for environmental monitoring, street spoils hauling, and communication tower access. This access is used
frequently throughout all times of year. Major utility infrastructure that would require access for
maintenance (everything from minor vegetation management to major capital repairs) include Cascade
Natural Gas line, Bonneville Power Association power lines, Puget Sound Energy power lines and the 18-
inch transition main that carries water from Pump Station 17 (pipe layout yard) to the Kitsap Lake area.
The main is flushed and cleaned every year (pigging) with a pig port located on the proposed pathway
between Alexander and Heins Lakes. Lastly, the south end of the proposed trail bisects the Suquamish
Tribe Fisheries operation.
Security
Another significant issue with the proposed trail is the increase in security that would be required to try
to prevent trespass onto Utility Land. This may include, but is not limited to, more police patrols, signage,
security cameras, gates, fencing, and additional labor hours. A solid barrier between the trail and the
Utility Lands has a high likelihood of keeping most of the public from illegally entering the Utility Lands.
However, fence breeching through cutting or climbing are observed in other fenced utility properties and
would be expected here at least occasionally. Additionally, fencing cannot block Navy railroad crossings,
allowing trespassers easy access to Utility Lands at those crossings.
Threat to Unfiltered Source Water Status:
The existing controlled access points along the outer perimeter of the Utility Land are the access points
to the City’s unfiltered source of drinking water. There is no interior secured perimeter around the Union
River Reservoir or McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin. Utility Land that surrounds the McKenna Falls Intake
Subbasin inside the existing secure perimeter were acquired for buffering purposes to maximize the
separation between the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and potential pollutant-generating activity
(includes transportation and recreational activity such as hiking and biking) and risks associated with the
Wildland Urban Interface. Acquiring additional buffer property is a top strategy identified in the
Watershed Control Program Plan - a requirement under WAC 246-290-690(3)(e) to remain unfiltered -
and has been utilized in the past to increase separation and improve level of protection. To allow a shared-
use trail as proposed through the buffer area will reduce the buffer width. Fencing may be effective in
keeping most trespassers out of the watershed, but it can do nothing to prevent other effects of moving
72
the WUI risks closer to the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin such as wildfire risk from a carelessly discarded
cigarette butt or illegal camping.
This proposed land use change of the buffer property and movement of potential risk closer to the
McKenna Falls Subbasin could be viewed by regulatory agencies as a negative change in security posture
and a reduction in protection of the unfiltered source (See Attached Department of Health Letter). This
could result in the City’s loss of unfiltered status and a significant cost to drinking water ratepayers as
discussed in the Cost section below.
Comprehensive Planning Consistency/Environmental Considerations:
Any development or activity must be compatible with other City comprehensive plans. The Gorst Subarea
Plan, led by Kitsap County and the City in partnership with state, federal and tribal agencies and adopted
by City Council (Ordinance 5237, 2013), sets out a 20-year land use plan for the future of Gorst. The three-
part study included an in-depth assessment of the ecological resources within the Gorst Creek Watershed
(Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization and Framework Plan, 2012). The purpose of the subarea plan
was, as stated in the plan, a “cooperative planning effort…to develop a land use plan that is based on the
ecological values and functions of the Gorst Creek Watershed in southeast Kitsap County.”
The characterization identified critical functions the Gorst Creek Watershed provides locally and within
the context of the greater Puget Sound Region, and categorized subbasins within the watershed based
upon each subbasins’ function and importance. Those areas of the watershed that were zoned for
maximum protection (Protection Zone) are delineated in Figure 2 and encompass nearly the entire
proposed trail route through the Utility Lands. The report states, “The Protection Zone supports recharge,
discharge and storage processes which are critical to sustain a natural range of flows in Gorst Creek,
including adequate low flows during summer and fall. Because recharge and discharge processes are
sensitive to development and would be significantly degraded by impervious surfaces, buildings, roads,
and drainage infrastructure, such development should be restricted in this zone.” (Page 4-2)
73
Figure 2. Gorst Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection Zones (taken from Gorst Subarea Plan –
Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization and Framework Plan, page 3-6)
The characterization also highlighted the following critical watershed functions identified in May and
Peterson’s Landscape Assessment and Conservation Prioritization of Freshwater and Nearshore Salmonid
Habitat in Kitsap County (2003):
The Gorst Creek Watershed is described as “one of the largest and most productive watersheds in the east
WRIA-15 subregion” and “above river mile 1.0, is rated 23rd out of 95 salmonid refugia areas within Kitsap
County”.
The forested area that comprises the north and central portion of the Gorst Creek Watershed is publicly
owned and lies within a contiguous area that also contains Green Mountain and Tahuya State Forest.
Taken together, this area comprises the largest open-space block in the Puget Trough Ecoregion of the
Puget Sound Basin.
Adding a trail with facilities and services such as additional parking areas, benches, handicap accessibility,
and restrooms at trail heads may disturb salmon refugia areas, and security fencing along the length of
the trail would truncate a significant portion of the open space in terms of movement of terrestrial
species.
Cost:
All costs associated with the construction, maintenance, security and other needs including staffing
associated with the proposed trail cannot be funded by the Water Utility as the trail does not support the
74
provision of drinking water. Therefore, all costs described here will be a General Fund expenditure. The
only potential cost to the Water Utility, though it be by far the largest, would be the cost of implementing
filtration should the proposed use result in the loss of unfiltered source status.
The project costs in today’s dollars are almost certainly higher than the estimated $4 million in the 2018
Feasibility Study, which included engineering, construction, management, right-of-way easement cost,
design, and a 20% contingency. Outside the estimated cost breakdown within the 2018 Feasibility Study,
there are additional unforeseen costs. One major cost would be from the increase in staffing necessary to
successfully maintain and operate a connecting trail of this size and to manage the complexity of the multi-
use proposal. Duties related to the proposed trail would include coordination with utility operations on
scheduling, security, community education/engagement, maintenance contractors, litter patrol, and
other needs. This position would also closely work with Kitsap County, Bremerton Police, and Bremerton
Fire.
There could also be a large amount of unforeseen cost needed for improved infrastructure. This could
include facilities and services such as additional parking areas, benches, handicap accessibility, restrooms
at trail heads, maps and kiosks, garbage service, adequate lighting at trailheads and parking lots.
A cost estimate to fence off either side of the trail with an 8-foot-tall standard cyclone fence is
approximately $30 per linear foot, not including gates. This would be a total approximate cost of $650,000
to fence either side of the 1.99 miles of proposed trail across Utility lands. This cost does not include yearly
maintenance of the fence line for down trees/branches, vandalism, etc. Additional gates may have to be
installed along the fence for access and maintenance. The average cost of a new forestry gate installed is
approximately $10,000, not including any road work associated with the gate. The typical forestry security
camera is a heavy-duty cellular trail camera, secured by a steel beer box and lock. These would be
strategically placed near main access points or high traffic areas of trespassing. The average cost of a
typical security camera set up is approximately $500 per camera including accessories. These are only the
minimal security measures identified; more may be necessary if these are not sufficient.
The greatest potential cost is associated with the loss of the unfiltered status of the drinking water supply
if this action results in system failure to meet the criteria for unfiltered systems as detailed in WAC 246-
290-691 or if the regulatory body determines that this action results in increased risk that cannot be
sufficiently mitigated. Losing the ability to remain unfiltered would require the City of Bremerton to
construct filtration facilities, either conventional coagulation/flocculation/filtration or membrane
filtration. Either approach could cost the utility ratepayers 10’s to 100’s of millions of dollars for
construction and over a million dollars or more a year to operate and maintain.
Recommendations
It is our recommendation that a comprehensive feasibility assessment, taking all issues discussed above
into consideration, be completed before pursuing a project of this nature. Given the costliest potential
impact, loss of unfiltered status of the drinking water supply, it is imperative that the City consult closely
75
with the State Department of Health to determine if equal or better protection of the water supply is
reasonably achievable.
76
April 2, 2025
Cami Apfelbeck
City of Bremerton
100 Oyster Bay Avenue North
Bremerton, Washington 98312
Subject: City of Bremerton, ID #08200R, Kitsap County; Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) – Union River Treatment Facility and Watershed Inspection 2025
Dear Cami Apfelbeck:
On March 25, 2025, Steve Deem and I conducted the annual inspection of the Union River
watershed, McKenna Falls Intake, and Advanced Disinfection Facility (ADF), as required by
WAC 246-290-691(3)(c). The inspection did not identify any deficiencies that would affect the
City of Bremerton’s (City) unfiltered status for the Union River supply.
During the inspection, we toured the watershed including an area that burned in a 2018 fire and
the catchment area for the City’s seasonal surface water source (S02, West Branch Union River).
We also toured the Casad Dam, West Branch Intake, McKenna Falls Intake, and the Advanced
Disinfection Facility (ADF). We discussed forestry management, security, safety, and concerns
for future development.
The City’s water system and watershed are well-managed, and the City proactively makes
improvements. For example, we were pleased to see that the City completed two new bridge
projects allowing larger fire-fighting vehicles to access more areas of the watershed. This will
improve fire-fighting effectiveness and reduce the risk to the watershed. Another recently
completed project was adding communication fiber to your facilities to improve communication
reliability and security.
Based on the inspection and supporting documentation, our recommendations are:
1. We understand the City is considering adding a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the
eastern part of the city-owned watershed control area. Although the proposed public
access path is outside the hydrologic boundary of the surface water source, we have
significant concerns about reducing the protective buffer that keeps people out of this
valuable water supply. People, both well-meaning and not, present a risk to water
quality. The primary concern is human started fire. We are also concerned the increased
access may encourage people to attempt to access areas within the watershed and may
make future development ideas seem more acceptable. Our recommendation is to find an
77
Cami Apfelbeck
April 2, 2025
Page 2
alternate alignment for the proposed trail that does not pass through the watershed control
area. If the City chooses to construct the trail, you should carefully consider how you
will mitigate the risks to the watershed. While we understand there would be public
benefit to providing a safe pedestrian path, please do not undervalue the unfiltered status
of this water supply when considering the accompanying risks.
2. We also discussed preparing a Harmful Algal Bloom Response Plan. Although you
currently have low susceptibility to algal blooms, this may change as the climate trends
warmer and drier. We recommend getting ahead of the issue by preparing a plan as
outlined in our publication 331-654 Dealing with Cyanobacteria: Time to Make a Plan.
We continue to be impressed with the City’s commitment to excellence in water system operations
and watershed maintenance. Active management of the watershed is critical for maintaining both
high water quality and stable watershed conditions.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone at (564) 669-3170 or by e-mail at
candida.granillo-dodds@doh.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Candida Granillo-Dodds, P.E.
Office of Drinking Water, Regional Engineer
cc: Kitsap Public Health District
Jolyn Leslie, ODW
Scott Pollock, ODW
78
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. Technical Team
Date: May 26, 2025
Re: Special Topic: Water Filtration Plant Rate Impacts
Introduction
The special topics memo on the Kitsap Lake to Jarstad Park Trail evaluated potential impacts of the
proposed trail on security, the City’s unfiltered surface water status, and current operating and
maintenance costs. Given input from the Washington State Department of Health, the conclusion is that
the proposed land use change could jeopardize the unfiltered status of the City’s surface water source
resulting in the requirement to construct a water filtration plant (WFP). Considering this potential impact
on water system operations, the City contracted with Consor Engineers to develop budget level estimates
of capital and operating costs for a WFP; see attached.
Since the type and size of contaminant to be removed determines the type of filtration facility required,
the selection of treatment process must be preceded by a thorough water quality characterization, pilot
testing, and alternatives analysis. As it is not possible to predict a specific contaminant but rather a suite
of potential contaminants, this cost assessment considers both conventional filtration (low end costs) and
membrane filtration (high end costs). These costs were then used to estimate resulting rate impacts.
Key Assumptions
The Current Harvest Financial Plan developed to evaluate the Timber Harvest Alternatives was used as
the basis to complete the water filtration plant rate impacts evaluation. All financial assumptions remain
the same with the exception of the following:
• Additional Annual operating costs will begin the year after construction (2031)
» Low alternative operating costs = $1.320 million per year
» High alternative operating costs = $16.060 million per year
• Capital Costs – construction to begin in 2026
» 30% design year 1 and year 2, costs split equally
» 70% construction year 3 through 5, costs split equally
» Low alternative capital costs = $ 84.7 million
» High alternative capital costs = $459.8 million
• Revenue bonds with a term of 20 years, 5.0 percent interest, 1.0 percent issuance costs assumed
for all new debt proceeds required
79
Water Filtration Plant Alternatives
Two WFP alternatives were evaluated – low and high operating and capital costs. As noted previously the
operating costs will begin the year after construction and total design and construction of the WFP will
span five years. The capital funding approach is to use available resources first such as beginning reserve
balances, rate funding and general facility charges before assuming new debt service. Due to the larger
capital costs of a water filtration plant, new debt will be required for both alternatives.
Water Filtration Plant – Low Cost
This alternative assumes $1.320 million in additional operating costs beginning in 2031. Capital costs of
$84.7 million ($96.4 escalated to year of construction) are spread over the five years with 30 percent for
design averaging $13.5 million per year over the initial two years. The construction costs are spread over
the final three years at an average of $23.1 million per year. The WFP low cost option requires external
funding of $112 million, assumed as revenue bonds (4 issues in 2026, 2029, 2032 and 2035). The
corresponding annual debt service ranges from a low of $4.4 million to a high of $9.9 million. The ten year
change in rates is $39.09 ($72.43 less $33.34) or an average of $3.91 annual monthly change in rates. The
rate impacts are front loaded during the design and construction of the WFP.
Table 1. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – WFP Low Cost
Water Filtration – High Cost
This alternative assumes $16.060 million in additional annual operating costs beginning in 2031. Capital
costs of $459.8 million are spread over the five years with 30 percent for design averaging $68.9 million
per year over the initial two years. The construction costs are spread over the final three years at an
average of $107.3 million per year. The WFP high cost option requires external funding of $396.4 million,
assumed here as revenue bonds (3 issues in 2026, 2028, 2030). The corresponding annual debt service
ranges from a low of $10.8 million to a high of $35.0 million. Due to the level of new debt proceeds
required under this scenario, meeting the 1.50 debt service coverage ratio becomes a rate driver. This
level of debt service coverage or higher may be needed to secure favorable bond interest rates, bond
rating and to provide financial assurance that the City will meet the annual debt service payments. The
ten year change in rates is $177.39 ($210.73 less $33.34). The initial six years during WFP design and
construction have the largest annual impact before returning to more moderate rate changes.
Table 2. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – WFP High Cost
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 20.00%12.00%12.00%12.00%7.00%7.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 40.01$ 44.81$ 50.19$ 56.21$ 60.14$ 64.35$ 66.28$ 68.27$ 70.32$ 72.43$
Change ($)6.67$ 4.80$ 5.38$ 6.02$ 3.93$ 4.21$ 1.93$ 1.99$ 2.05$ 2.11$
Projected
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 77.50%50.00%50.00%15.00%15.00%15.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 59.18$ 88.77$ 133.15$ 153.12$ 176.09$ 202.51$ 204.53$ 206.58$ 208.64$ 210.73$
Change ($)25.84$ 29.59$ 44.38$ 19.97$ 22.97$ 26.41$ 2.03$ 2.05$ 2.07$ 2.09$
Projected
80
Comparison of Alternatives
Table 3 provides a summary of the monthly single family rate impacts for each Timber Harvest Alternative
and WFP alternatives for comparison purposes. The main difference in the Timber Harvest Alternatives is
the level of timber harvest revenue assumed. The last two scenarios assume the current harvest
alternative with the addition of the water filtration plant operating and capital costs.
Table 3. Summary of Timber Harvest and WFP Alternatives Monthly Bill Impacts
In addition to the monthly single family bill impacts, a graph of the cumulative rate increases is provided
to show the range and spread of the timber harvest alternatives over time. As shown, the alternatives
show a cumulative rate impact ranging from a low of 33 percent to a high of over 500 percent.
Summary
The City relies on the McKenna Falls surface supply for approximately 2/3 of our drinking water; this
source is very high quality, and the capacity available is critical to meet our peak demands. Replacing the
surface supply with additional wells is impractical and may not be possible.
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
No Harvest 33.34$ 34.76$ 36.23$ 37.77$ 39.38$ 41.05$ 42.80$ 44.62$ 46.51$ 48.49$ 50.55$
Current Harvest 33.34$ 34.57$ 35.85$ 37.18$ 38.55$ 39.98$ 41.46$ 42.99$ 44.59$ 46.24$ 47.95$
50-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.31$ 35.30$ 36.33$ 37.38$ 38.46$ 39.58$ 40.73$ 41.91$ 43.12$ 44.37$
60-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.37$ 35.44$ 36.54$ 37.67$ 38.84$ 40.04$ 41.28$ 42.56$ 43.88$ 45.24$
WFP -Low Cost 33.34$ 40.01$ 44.81$ 50.19$ 56.21$ 60.14$ 64.35$ 66.28$ 68.27$ 70.32$ 72.43$
WFP - High Cost 33.34$ 59.18$ 88.77$ 133.15$ 153.12$ 176.09$ 202.51$ 204.53$ 206.58$ 208.64$ 210.73$
Projected
0.00%
100.00%
200.00%
300.00%
400.00%
500.00%
600.00%
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Timber Harvest Alternatives
Cumulative Rate Increases
No Harvest Current Harvest 50 Year Rotation
60 Year Rotation WFP -Low Cost WFP - High Cost
81
The loss of unfiltered status for the City would bring large financial impacts to the water utility. The low
construction cost estimate for the water filtration plant would over double (2.17x) the current rate. The
high construction cost estimate would be over six times (6.32x) the existing water rates by 2035.
82
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard
Date: 12/9/2024
Re: Special Topic: Staffing
Introduction
The City’s Forestry Division manages all aspects of forestry on the 7,940 acres of Utility Lands. This includes
but is not limited to road maintenance, silviculture, harvest layout, contract administration, budgeting,
harvest scheduling, wildlife management, biosolids applications, security, and other functions. The
Forestry Division works closely with the Water Utility Manager on security management and drinking
water source protection and works collaboratively with other City divisions on various projects as needed.
Background Information
There are currently a staff of four full time positions and one seasonal position within the Forestry Division.
This includes a Forestry Manager, a Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor, two Forestry Service
Specialists/Senior positions, and a seasonal Forestry Intern. The job descriptions are as follows.
Forestry Manager
Salary Range: $107,619.84-$131,124.24 Annually.
This position manages the Forestry Division of the Department of Public Works and Utilities. This position
is responsible for all aspects of management of the Utility Lands outside the City’s urban boundaries. Some
of the duties of this position include but are not limited to Forestry Division management, biosolids
program management, special project management, land management, and inter-departmental/agency
coordination. This position also currently provides review of forest practices permits to support the City’s
Department of Community Development and provides support to Utility Land leases with tree
removal/management (example, Gold Mtn Golf Course).
Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor
Salary Range: $45.36-$53.50 Hourly
This position works under the supervision of the Forestry Manager and manages on-the-ground
operations. Some of the duties of this position include but are not limited to managing timber harvest
activities, revenue generation, security management, supervising and training forestry service specialists
and interns, road maintenance, special projects, water quality protection, and biosolids application.
Forestry Service Specialist/Senior
Salary Range: $28.20-$38.45 Hourly
This position works under the supervision of the Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor. Some of the duties
include but are not limited to operating specialized heavy equipment, road construction and maintenance,
83
biosolids application, timber harvest activities, revenue generation, security management, special
projects, and silviculture applications.
Forestry Intern
Salary Range: $20.00-$25.00 Hourly, Full Time Seasonal (4-6 Months)
This position works under the supervision of the Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor. Some of the duties
include but are not limited to reforestation surveys, stream survey work, GPS work, road construction and
maintenance, manual labor, operating hand tools, and operating small equipment to help maintain the
forestry equipment, buildings, and grounds.
The budgeted personnel cost for the entire Forestry program, including benefits, overtime and the
seasonal position is $622,649.
Issue Assessment
There are no identifiable issues with the current staffing level within the Forestry Division. Forest
management by nature is extremely complex and ever changing due to multiple management objectives,
advancing technology, increased or changing rules and regulations, and adjacent land use and
development. The scale and level of complexity within the City’s Utility Lands easily justifies the current
staffing levels and cost to continue to ensure successful management of all aspects of forestry and
protection of water quality. Continued use of the current staffing structure, outlined duties, and
organization, and implementation of treatments and applications should ensure successful achievement
of the City’s management objectives.
Findings and Recommendations
It is our recommendation that the forestry staffing levels stay the same or increase based on the current
needs of the forestry division. An increase in staff, specifically having two separate positions, a Forestry
Equipment Specialist/Senior, and a Forestry Specialist/Senior, would create a more effective and self-
contained workflow for the forestry division. Fitting staff to specific roles would allow individuals to focus
on developing and mastering certain specialized skills versus a more general role where skills become less
refined. This recommendation would improve the overall management of the watershed and improve the
protection and stewardship of clean drinking water and successful fulfillment of the City’s other
management objectives.
The City should continue to actively monitor current pay scales for similar forestry positions within the
region to stay competitive in terms of wages, specifically within other City divisions. This will help to
minimize staff turnover and increase longevity and cumulative forestry experience within the Forestry
Division staff.
We recommend increasing the minimum qualifying education and forestry specific experience, required
for the Forestry Service Specialist position. This will ensure proper knowledge and experience when hiring
new staff and will reduce the amount of training necessary during onboarding, which will reduce the
workload of the Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor and Forestry Manager.
84
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. Technical Team
Date: 5/27/2025
Re: Special Topic: 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan
Introduction
A critical aspect of forest management is the development and management of the infrastructure
necessary to execute the forest operations that are conducted to achieve the overall goals for the forest,
including resource protection. The main infrastructure on any forest property is the road system, which
includes culverts, bridges, and the actual roads and road surfaces. Other infrastructure may include gates,
fencing, security systems, and buildings. The Forestry Division is responsible for the installation,
maintenance and upkeep of infrastructure, including working with the City Facilities Division to maintain
the Forestry Division office and buildings at the City of Bremerton Pipe Yard located on Belfair Valley Road.
All capital costs associated with Water Utility-owned properties and facilities, including Forestry assets,
are part of the master 20-year Water Utility Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The 20-year plan developed
here will include only those assets associated with the Forestry Division.
Background Information
City of Bremerton owned forest lands contain a robust and well-maintained road system. Most roads are
rocked, all season roads, with a small component of trails and dirt spur-roads that are appropriate for
seasonal use. There is a total of 64.9-miles of mapped roads within the City’s Utility Lands, not including
trails and minor spur-roads. This road system includes a total of nine bridges, all of which have been field
verified and confirmed to be currently sound and functional. There are 256 mapped culverts on the City’s
Utility Lands, varying in size from 18 to 66-inches in diameter (See Figure-1). Other assets include but are
not limited to the biosolids storage sites and trails, forestry equipment and equipment storage facilities,
the forestry division office building and compound, and forest gates. Table-1 shows planned capital
improvements and costs from 2025 to 2045.
85
Table 1: Planned and Proposed 20-year Capital Improvements
Issue Assessment
The culverts on City Utility Lands have been well maintained, are currently in good overall condition, and
should be monitored periodically to ensure they are replaced when appropriate. Periodic culvert
installation or replacement could be considered part of road maintenance and not necessarily a capital
improvement as it is a relatively minor expense.
Bridges are a significant expense and improvement to the Utility Lands and should be considered a capital
improvement. Out of the nine bridges on Utility Lands, one will need to be updated or replaced within the
next 20-years. Bridge #9 (5400-Road Bridge) is located roughly one-half mile north of Union Reservoir (See
Figures 2, 3, 4).
Capital Asset Projects Proposed Improvement Estimated Total
Project Budget Description
Forestry Bridge Load Rating/Repairs Bridge Assessments $ 350,000.00
Biannual assessment from a licensed Engineer inspect all
Forestry Bridges and provide recommendations on repairs or
replacement. Also includes additional funds to have Forestry
Staff conduct maintenance as recommended by Engineer.
2000 Road Culvert Replacement Replace Culvert $ 335,000.00
Replace undersized culvert that was recently determined to be
Fish passable. This project is to replace it either with bridge or
larger culvert depending on what contracted Engineer
determines.
McKenna Falls Forestry Office Major
Improvements Roof Replacement $ 20,000.00
Roof replacement for Forestry Office. Projects like this for
Forestry managed structures are identified by the City’s Facility
Division and paid for out of the Water Capital budget.
Roll up building at City Pipe
Yard(4398 W. Belfair Valley RD)
Major Improvements
Fire Alarm Installation 20,000.00$ Installation of Fire Alarm system.
Biosolids Pond Roof Cover
Structural Assessments & Repairs*Assessment and Repairs 80,000.00$ Structural Engineer assessing all 3 Biosolid Pond Roof Covers
and making recommendations for repairs.
Biosolids Pond Vehicle New Storage
Buildings* Building Construction 240,000.00$ Construction of three pole barn like structures that will be used
for vehicle storage at the Biosolid Ponds.
Watershed / Utility Security
Evaluation Plan and Enhancements
Security Evaluation,
Proposed Gate
Improvements
2,150,000.00$
To conduct the 5 Year Security Evaluation Plan as required by
regulations. These funds are also available for Security
improvements such as gate repairs/construction, new security
cameras or other upgrades suggested by the plan.
Utility Land Management Plan Utility Land Management
Plan Update 771,112.00$ Updates to the Utility Land Management Plan every 10 years as
necessary.
Forest Management Plan Forest Management Plan
Updates 800,000.00$
Updating the Forest Management Plan based upon
recommendations from the Utility Land Management Plan
Updates.
Union River Drainage Stream
Mapping
Stream Mapping
Assessment 60,000.00$ Have a consultant GPS and inventory all streams that feed into
the Union River Reservoir on City of Bremerton Property.
Forest Bridge Replacement*Replace 5400 Rd Bridge 200,000.00$ Licensed engineer to develop plans and installation of concrete
bridge.
Culvert Replacement*Replace Culverts 15,000.00$ Replace 6 culverts, flagged for replacement by forestry division.
Forestry Machinery/ Equipment Equipment Funds 525,000.00$ Annual funds available for accessories or small equipment
needed for Forestry owned equipment.
*New Proposed Projects
2025 - 2045 Total 5,566,112.00$
86
Timing and Cost
The bridge that will need to be replaced is currently functional and does not require immediate attention,
but the replacement should be completed within the next 20-years as determined by the Forestry
Manager. The cost for this replacement can fluctuate greatly as material costs can change dramatically
over time. Bridge #9 is roughly 60-feet long and currently composed of wood and steel. We recommend
replacing with concrete, which will be more durable than steel. The estimated cost of a single concrete
bridge, including installation is approximately $175,000.00. In addition to the actual infrastructure cost,
engineered plans will need to be developed by a licensed engineer as part of the permit process. The cost
estimate for these plans is $15,000.00.
Figure-1. City of Bremerton Roads and Infrastructure Map
87
Figure-2. Map of Proposed Bridge Replacement
McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin
88
Figure-3. Bridge-9
Figure-4. Bridge-9
89
Figure-5. Bridge-9
90
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. Technical Team
Date: 2/18/2025
Re: Special Topic: Carbon Project Considerations
Introduction
Carbon projects on forest lands provide land managers an option for generating revenue by increasing
carbon stored in the forest. This memo provides background information on forest carbon projects,
identifies key considerations for land managers interested in assessing carbon project opportunities, and
provides a high-level assessment of the likelihood that a carbon project would result in additional revenue
to the City of Bremerton.
How do carbon projects work?
Carbon projects, whether forest based or not, generate revenue through the creation and sale of “carbon
credits.” A carbon credit represents one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e.1 The number of
carbon credits generated by a forest project depends on multiple factors including the scale of the project,
the growth rate of the forest in the project area, and the baseline condition which the project is assessed
against. The baseline condition is defined by a “protocol.” Under a carbon project, forest mangers
implement practices that result in forest carbon stocks higher than the baseline. In carbon project terms,
the project provides “additionality.” Land managers engage a carbon developer (such as Anew,
FiniteCarbon, or The Climate Trust) to develop a carbon project. The developer then works with a carbon
registry (such as Verra or American Carbon Registry) to show compliance with the protocol. The developer
then facilitates the sale of carbon credits on the carbon market.
Carbon credits are traded on two broad types of markets: compliance markets and voluntary markets.
Currently, forest carbon projects in Washington State are eligible for both types of markets, if the project
meets the requirements of eligible protocols for a given market.
Forest carbon projects have different commitment periods. Projects designed for the compliance market
require a commitment of 100 years. Voluntary market projects generally have a duration of 20-years or
more. These periods typically extend from the time of credit generation. As a result, a project that
generates credits, for example, five years after the project starts will have to last at least 25-years. Projects
can be structured to generate credits at different times. In most cases, revenue from the credits is
1 Equivalent in the sense of equivalent climate change impact as 1 metric ton of CO2.
91
generated following storage of carbon by the project, however, some projects can be structured so
payments occur prior to carbon storage at a discounted price.
The price of a carbon credit depends on the market. Carbon credit prices from the auction in the second
quarter 2024 for the Washington State compliance market were $29.92 per credit. This price is down from
$63.03 per credit in the third quarter of 2023. Forest carbon projects in Washington are eligible to sell
credits in the California carbon market, the largest U.S. compliance market. In that market, prices at the
August 2024 auction were $30.24 per credit. In 2023, voluntary market-improved-forest-management-
projects had an average carbon price of $12.34,2 though prices vary by project and protocol.
Forest carbon projects require monitoring and reporting, which would be an additional cost for the City
and additional time for the Forestry Division to manage. This monitoring includes the establishment and
remeasurement of permanent forest inventory plots. The protocol defines the density of the plots across
the property and the frequency of measurement needed to meet protocol-determined accuracy targets.
These inventories are usually more intensive than those commonly used by forest land managers.
Reporting requirements are defined by the protocol, but typical reporting includes high-level annual
reports and periodic in-forest carbon re-measurement. The cost of the inventory depends on the
complexity of the land base. Lands with a variety of different forest types will be most expensive. The cost
can be estimated during project development.
Project Scale
Projects usually must exceed 3,000 to 5,000 acres 3 to generate enough credits to generate sufficient
revenue to cover costs associated with the project, with better opportunities for revenue from projects
over 10,000 acres. An exception to this would be protocols that allow aggregation of properties with
different owners into a carbon project. However, no such protocol is applicable to Washington forest
lands.
MB&G knows of one carbon project on municipal lands of similar scale to the City of Bremerton Utility
Lands. The City of Astoria entered 3,700 acres in the city’s Bear Creek watershed, the city’s drinking water
source, into a carbon project under an American Carbon Registry improved forest management protocol.
Astroria reports generating $1,055,000 in net revenue in the first five years of the project to 2020, with
expected future expenses of $108,500.4
2 https://www.newprivatemarkets.com/data-snapshot-pricing-on-the-voluntary-carbon-market/
3 E.g., a 3,500 acre project developed by the climate trust in coastal Oregon
https://climatetrust.org/projects/coastal-edge-forest/
4 The American Carbon Registry improved forest management protocol as been updated since Astoria developed a
carbon project. These changes could affect both the potential revenue and potential costs of a carbon project.
Astoria’s costs and revenue projections may not be representative costs and revenue under other projects due to
these changes in the protocol and site-specific considerations such as timber volume and growth rate.
92
Protocol Options
Two types of protocols are applicable to forested lands – improved forest management and avoided
conversion protocols.5 Of these, improved forest management is the only protocol potentially applicable
to the City of Bremerton Utility Lands, since the lands have no risk of conversion to other use due to the
need to protect the City’s drinking water resource.
The improved forest management protocols do not specify particular management regimes for a project
area, just the baseline. Forest managers then develop plans to manage in a manner to increase carbon
storage on the property or maintain already existing carbon stocks above baseline levels. In the Pacific
Northwest, extending harvest rotations is the most common method to do this.
Developing a Project
Land managers, in conjunction with a carbon project developer, can assess multiple potential
management regimes against the baseline to calculate the number of credits that could be generated.
Once a management regime is selected the land manager and project developer work with a “carbon
registry” to get the project approved and credits issued. The registry ensures the proposed project
complies with the protocol and that the additionality calculation is accurate for the project area. The
registry also tracks ownership, issuance, retirement, and transfer of carbon credits.
Carbon Project Potential on City of Bremerton Utility Lands
In order to fully assess the potential of City of Bremerton Utility Lands for a carbon project, an in-depth
analysis is needed. However, a preliminary analysis indicates that the net revenue generating potential of
a carbon project on the Utility Lands is low. The total area of the Utility Lands is at or near the breakeven
point beyond which the project would become profitable. In addition, as a public land manager, the
baseline for these lands is likely to assume higher forest carbon stocks than for private lands in western
Washington. The current harvest intensity on Bremerton’s lands is relatively low. As a result, the potential
additional carbon storage is lower than on more intensively harvested lands. Less potential additionality
reduces the number of credits that can be generated and therefore the total potential revenue.
Certain changes to carbon protocols or carbon markets could increase the potential revenue from a
project on in the Bremerton Utility Lands. For example, if carbon protocols that allow project aggregation
for monitoring are introduced in Washington, the cost of project implementation could be reduced.
Alternatively, a significantly increased carbon unit price would increase the revenue potential. If, or when,
these protocol and market changes may occur is unknown.
5 Afforestation protocols also exist but these are applicable to lands that have lost forest cover due to natural
disturbance or conversion to another land use and would store more carbon if planted with trees.
93
Attachment 1
Follow-up questions from Advisory Committee Meeting #3, September 9, 2024
1) Initiative 2117 would repeal the 2021 Washington State Climate Commitment Act. It would
prohibit state agencies from implementing any cap and trade or cap and tax programs. If the
initiative passes, would a carbon credit program even be possible on the City’s lands?
Yes. The City could develop a carbon program for the voluntary market or the California compliance
market.
2) Is a carbon project permanent? Is there potential for the City to need to harvest for forest health
in the future and then not be able to?
Carbon projects are not permanent. Projects have terms that generally range from 20 to 100 years
depending on the protocol and market. Carbon projects are not strictly no harvest programs. The
protocols allow for harvest to continue, though this does affect the number of carbon credits generated
for sale. In the case of a forest health issue that would be resolved through harvest, if the harvest exceeds
what can be done under the project, the number credits generated would be reduced or penalties may
be incurred. The exact details would depend on the situation.
3) Is there research into what we could be doing to increase carbon sequestration or is the science
still fairly new?
There is science available regarding carbon sequestration in forests and wood products and potential
impacts of forestry on atmospheric carbon. The results differ depending on the scope of the analysis and
the timescale. Significant research continues on this topic.
94
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard
Date: 05/27/2025
Re: Special Topic: Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives and Associated Revenue and Water Rate Impacts
Introduction
Sustainable harvest is defined as the volume of timber that can be harvested annually from a given land
base on a perpetual basis without reducing the total merchantable volume. A sustainable harvest can be
boiled down to mean: “harvest equals growth”. A key factor that must be considered when determining
the sustainable harvest level is the rotation age. The lower the rotation age, the higher the annual harvest.
Industrial forest owners that are tasked with maximizing net present value generally harvest when the
discount rate exceeds the timber's growth rate, which occurs around age 40. Forest owners with values
and goals that are not strictly driven by economics will set older rotation ages, which results in lower
annual yields.
In order for the City of Bremerton to determine the appropriate level of harvest from their forestland, it
is important to understand the options for harvest in the context of sustainability and other goals, and
how decisions on harvest levels will affect associated revenue and impact water-rates. While the focus of
this memorandum is sustainable harvest, serious consideration must also be given to how the harvest
level and location of harvests will affect resource protection and the unfiltered surface water status of the
City’s drinking water.
Background Information
Historic Harvest and Revenue Levels
Since 1979, the median 1 annual harvest level for the City of Bremerton is 1.8-million board feet (mmbf).
Most of this volume has come from land outside the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin, which is the
catchment area that produces drinking water for the City. In the Subbasin, protection of the resource is
the primary goal, while harvest goals are secondary. Figure-1 illustrates the annual harvest levels since
1979.
1 Median instead of mean (average) values are used throughout this memo as the median is less sensitive to outliers
and extreme values, which exist over the 45-year set of data.
95
Figure-1. Annual Harvest Volume 2 Since 1979
Since 1979, the median annual net revenue level for the City of Bremerton is $507,000.00 (nominal
dollars). Figure-2 illustrates the annual net revenue levels since 1979.
Figure-2. Annual Net Revenue Since 1979
2 MBF = Thousand Board Feet
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
City of Bremerton
Annual Net Revenue $
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
19791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005200720092011201320152017201920212023City of Bremerton
Annual Harvest Volume (MBF)
96
In the last 10-years the median annual harvest volume and median annual net revenue levels have been
1.1-mmbf and $452,000.00, respectively. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the fluctuation of harvest and revenue
level by decade. Fluctuations were mainly a result of varying demands for revenue.
Figure-3. Median Annual Harvest Volume by Decade
Figure-4. Median Annual Net Revenue by Decade
Historic Sustainable Harvest Calculations
A 2006 analysis by the University of Washington (UW) College of Forest Resources, in conjunction with
Washington Timber Management, Inc, using Landscape Management System (a forestry modeling
program), provided the City with two separate guidelines for harvest from their timberlands. For land
within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin watershed, where water production is the main priority, the
annual harvest level would be set at 500,000 board feet or 30% of the annual growth of 1.7-mmbf. Based
on the 2005 inventory, this equates to a 100-year rotation within the actual watershed. For lands outside
the watershed the annual sustainable harvest level was set conservatively at 2.4-mmbf, which was based
on modeling that showed sustainable average annual harvest volumes outside the watershed could range
from 2.5-3.0 mmbf.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
1979-1983 1984-1993 1994-2003 2004-2013 2014-2023
City of Bremerton
Median Annual Harvest Volume (MBF)
$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
1979-1983 1984-1993 1994-2003 2004-2013 2014-2023
City of Bremerton
Median Annual Net Revenue $
97
A 2016 analysis by Lusignan Forestry provided 10-year guidelines for sustainable harvest levels for all
harvestable timber owned by the City, based on either a 50 or 60-year rotation. The analysis assumed that
all acres 30-years of age and greater were merchantable, and that all those acres would be cut in a given
timeframe. The results were sustainable annual harvests of 2.6 and 3.1-mmbf for 60 and 50-year rotations
respectively.
2024 Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives
There are 5,864 total net harvestable forest acres owned by the City. Harvestable forest is defined as that
which can be potentially harvested and excludes roads, riparian areas, and non-forested areas. There are
3,573-acres older than 35 years of age, which are considered merchantable for the purpose of analyzing
the sustainable harvest level. Figure-5 shows a breakdown of the net harvestable acres by age class. Note
that the inventory shows no new stands were established (following a clearcut) from 1956 through 1979,
which is why there is a gap between the 40 and 66+ year age classes.
Figure-5. City of Bremerton Net Commercial Forest Acres by Age Class
There is 115.5-mmbf of volume in the merchantable category, greater than 35-years of age.
Based on the current merchantable and harvestable acreage of 3,573-acres, and a current total volume
within that acreage of 115.5-mmbf, the even-flow sustainable harvest per year, across all harvestable
Utility timberland, for the next ten years would be:
Based on a 60-year rotation: 3.2-mmbf per year
Based on a 50-year rotation: 3.8-mmbf per year
If we check these sustainable harvest levels against the “harvest equals growth” definition of sustainable
harvest, the available ‘commercial forest’ acres would need to be growing 539 thousand board feet (mbf)
per acre per year for sustainable annual harvest of 3.2-mmbf on a 60-year rotation. For a 50-year rotation
with a sustainable annual harvest of 3.8-mmbf, growth would need to be 647-mbf per acre per year. Based
on the research done as part of the 2006 report, the Current Annual Increment (CAI) for all available acres
98
is 724 board feet per acre per year. Therefore, the even-flow sustainable harvest levels for either a 50 or
60-year rotation shown above are well within the annual growth level of the City’s available ‘harvestable
forest’ lands.
Harvest Levels in Union River Basin and Other Utility Lands
The McKenna Falls Subbasin contains 2,811 acres of ‘harvestable forest’, which is 48% of the total
‘harvestable forest’ acres owned by the City, and contains 1,968-acres that are greater than 35-years of
age, which is 55% of the total ‘harvestable forest’ acres owned by the City that are greater than 35-years
of age. If harvest occurred in the Union River Basin proportionally over the next 10-years, 1.5 to 1.8-mmbf
would be harvested from land within the Union River Basin. This would more than triple the 500-mbf
annual harvest level recommended in the 2006 UW report. Historically the City has harvested an average
of roughly 25-acres per year within the Union River Basin, as shown in Figure 6. This represents an annual
harvest within the Basin of roughly 750-mbf. Harvests within the Basin have been compatible with the
resource protection necessary to maintain unfiltered surface water status of the City’s drinking water. If
the City continues to average 25-acres of harvest within the Union River Basin, and the goal for the Other
Utility Lands remains either a 50 or 60-year rotation, the even-flow sustainable harvest per year for the
next ten years would be:
Other Utility Lands 60-year rotation: 1.6-mmbf per year
Other Utility Lands 50-year rotation: 2.0-mmbf per year
Union River Basin Fixed Harvest Level: 25-acres per year (0.75-mmbf per year)
Figure-6. City of Bremerton Union River Basin Annual Harvest Acres
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1983 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023
COB -Union Basin
Annual Harvest Acres
99
Harvest Alternatives and Revenue Impacts
Figure-7 shows the location of merchantable volume across City of Bremerton Utility Lands. There is a
roughly equal distribution of merchantable volume within the McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin and outside
the Subbasin on other Utility Lands.
Figure-7. Merchantable Volume Distribution Across Bremerton Utility Lands
Below are alternatives for the City to consider when planning the future direction of timber harvesting on
their Utility Lands. The alternatives in Table-1 include those which limit the harvest volume within the
McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin to 25-acres annually and lands outside the Subbasin are harvested on
either a 50 or 60-year rotation. It is assumed that the value of the volume will equal the median per MBF
value of the last 10-years, which is $465 per MBF.
100
Table-1. Bremerton Utility Lands Sustainable Harvest Alternatives
Sustainable Alternative Annual Volume (MBF) Annual Estimated Net Revenue
No Harvest 0 $ 0
Current Program 1,100 $ 511,500
50yr Rotation
Limited McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin
Harvest
2,750 $ 1,278,750
60yr Rotation
Limited McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin
Harvest
2,350 $ 1,092,750
Water Rate Impacts
The City has engaged FCS Group as a part of the MB&G Team to specifically assess the potential impacts
of the alternative sustainable harvest levels on water rates. The water rate assessment will be completed
by FCS Group based on the alternatives presented here as well as other economic data and assumptions
explored during development of the revised Utility and Forest Land Management Plan (UFLMP). Results
will be presented concurrently with the draft UFLMP.
101
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 • Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
www.masonbruce.com
To: City of Bremerton
From: Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. Technical Team
Date: April 18, 2025
Re: Special Topic: Revenue and Water Rate Impacts
Introduction
The City of Bremerton’s (City) water utility is an enterprise fund responsible for funding all of its related
costs through user fees. The primary source of funding for the water utility is derived from ongoing
charges billed every month for service, with additional revenues coming from facilities leases, water
connections, timber sales, other service charges and other miscellaneous fees. The City controls the level
of user charges by ordinance, and subject to statutory authority, can adjust user charges as needed to
meet financial objectives.
A key component of the Utility Land Management Plan (ULMP) Update is to understand the revenue
and/or expense impacts that result from the timber harvest alternatives identified in the ULMP.
Background Information
The City evaluates rates on an annual basis. Every 5 to 7 years, the City also engages a consultant to review
the rate model, assumptions, and future needs to ensure that the rate projections developed remain
adequate. Any significant changes are incorporated into the financial plan and future rates are adjusted
as needed.
The primary goal of the financial plan is to develop a multi-year rate strategy that generates sufficient
revenue to cover the total operating costs of the water system and execute the capital program. The plan
focuses on defining the amount of revenue needed to meet the water system’s financial obligations
including:
• Operation and maintenance costs
• Administrative and overhead costs
• Policy-based needs (e.g., reserve funding)
• Capital costs
• Existing/new debt service obligations
The water utility financial plan developed as part of the 2022 rate study update was used as the
foundation for the financial evaluation completed as part of the ULMP. The following data were updated
in the financial plan to ensure impacts reflect the current operations of the water system:
102
• Budget 2025 operating and capital beginning fund balances
• Actual 2024 and budget 2025 detailed line-item expenditures
• Actual 2024 general water sales and budget 2025 sales revenue - future years projected revenue
based on 0.60 percent annual growth
• Annual debt service obligations including new loan draws and anticipated new debt issues
• 2025-2030 Water System Capital Improvement Plan , prior five year average used for 2031-2034
In addition to the updated components of the financial plan, any recommendations identified in the seven
(7) special topic memoranda were incorporated. A summary of the findings and recommendations
incorporated in the financial plan are as follows:
Special Topic Memorandum Financial Impact
1. Carbon Project Considerations N/A at this time
2. Adjacent Land Use N/A at this time; consider reserve funding for future
potential acquisitions
3. Kitsap Lake to Jarstad Park Trail N/A; comprehensive feasibility assessment needed
4. Security Processes and Procedures N/A; Included in current budget/capital plans
5. Staffing N/A; remain at current staffing levels
6. 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan
$5.566M total identified; $4.151M is included in
master 20-year water capital plan; additional
$1.415M included in alternatives evaluation.
7. Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives (Net
Revenue Presented)
4 alternatives evaluated
No harvest - $0 revenue/yr.
Current program - $511,500 revenue/yr.
50-year rotation - $1,278,750 revenue/yr.
60-year rotation - $1,092,750 revenue/yr.
Note – commercial timber landowners typically plan on a 30
to 40 year rotation
Table 1: Summary of Special Topic Memoranda Financial Considerations
Issue Assessment
For over 45 years, the City has used revenue from timber sales to help fund essential projects that protect
and maintain critical infrastructure in the Union River Watershed. The financial assessment evaluates the
water rate impacts resulting from maintaining or changing timber harvest levels. The ULMP
recommendations and alternatives under consideration are summarized in Table 1. The financial impacts
103
are determined by including known costs and revenue changes and determining the water rates that are
required to cover current operating and capital needs, additional costs and/or revenue changes identified
and maintaining the City’s fiscal policy requirements.
Timber Harvest Alternatives
The timber harvest alternatives and resulting water rate impacts were calculated using the existing 20-
year financial plan completed during the 2022 Rate Update. As noted previously, all key financial
components have been updated to 2025 budget values. All the alternatives evaluated use consistent
financial information and include the additional $1.415 million in Forestry Division capital projects
identified in the Capital Improvement Special Topic Memo. Each year with the budget, the City reviews
and approves a 6-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Water fund. Expenditures for the first two
years of the CIP are consistent with the Water Capital budget, and the remaining 4 years are a forecast
that is used to evaluate the required future revenue. The current capital plan covers the period of 2025 –
2030. To remain consist with the 10-year time period the ULMP will be in effect, the annual CIP for 2031-
2035 used the prior five-year annual average as an estimate ($5.9 million per year). The varying levels of
timber harvest revenue under each alternative are expressed as “net” revenue, meaning the revenue
generated is after associated logging costs and contractor costs are accounted for. The 10-year time
period of 2026-2035 is the time period used to evaluate the rate impacts for each of the timber harvest
alternatives.
Current Harvest
This alternative assumes the current level of $511,500 per year in timber sales revenue. The difference
for this alternative compared to the current program is the addition of the $1.415 million in Forestry
Division capital not currently accounted for in the 20-year water system capital plan. This alternative is
slightly higher than the current rate projection due to the noted capital additions that are assumed to be
cash financed. The ten year change in rates is $14.61 ($47.95 less $33.34) or an average of $1.46 monthly
change in rates.
Table 2. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – Current Harvest
No Harvest
This alternative assumes no revenue is generated from timber sales, leaving less revenue to cover
operating costs. This alternative has the largest rate impact of the alternatives due to the loss of $511,500
per year or $5.1 million for the ten year period. The ten year change in rates is $17.21 ($50.55 less $33.34)
or an average of $1.72 monthly change in rates.
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%3.70%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 34.57$ 35.85$ 37.18$ 38.55$ 39.98$ 41.46$ 42.99$ 44.59$ 46.24$ 47.95$
Change ($)1.23$ 1.28$ 1.33$ 1.38$ 1.43$ 1.48$ 1.53$ 1.59$ 1.65$ 1.71$
Projected
104
Table 3. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – No Harvest
50-Year Rotation
This alternative assumes a timber harvest of 2,750 million board feet (MBF), limited Union Basin Harvest
and a 50-year rotation. The annual estimated revenue is $1.3 million ($1,278,750). This is significant as it
is over double the current annual timber sales revenue planned to be received by the City. This alternative
has the lowest rate impact due to the level of additional revenue assumed ($12.8 million during 2026-
2035). The ten year change in rates is $11.03 ($44.37 less $33.34) or an average of $1.10 monthly change
in rates. This rate is $2.66 lower than the City’s current projected 2035 rate of $47.03.
Table 4. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – 50-Year Rotation
60-Year Rotation
This alternative assumes a timber harvest of 2,350 MBF, limited Union Basin Harvest and a 60-year
rotation. The annual estimated revenue is $1.1 million ($1,092,750). The 60-year rotation assumes less
MBF per year than the 50-year rotation. The resulting revenue is slightly over double (2.13 times) the
current Timber sales revenue planned to be received annually by the City. The ten year change in rates is
$11.90 or an average of $1.19 monthly change in rates. This alternative is also below the current rate
projection of the City with the addition of nearly $11.0 million in revenue during 2026-2035.
Table 5. Sample Single Family Monthly Bill – 60-Year Rotation
Comparison of Timber Harvest Alternatives
Table 7 provides a summary of the monthly single family rate impacts for each alternative for comparison
purposes. The main difference in alternatives is the level of timber harvest revenue assumed. The water
rate impacts range from a high of $50.55 in 2035 (no harvest) to a low of $44.37 (50-year rotation and
max revenue potential). The rate difference between the alternatives is $6.18 in 2035. As indicated in the
table, any timber harvest revenue received will help lower future water rates.
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%4.25%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 34.76$ 36.23$ 37.77$ 39.38$ 41.05$ 42.80$ 44.62$ 46.51$ 48.49$ 50.55$
Change ($)1.42$ 1.48$ 1.54$ 1.61$ 1.67$ 1.74$ 1.82$ 1.90$ 1.98$ 2.06$
Projected
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 34.31$ 35.30$ 36.33$ 37.38$ 38.46$ 39.58$ 40.73$ 41.91$ 43.12$ 44.37$
Change ($)0.97$ 0.99$ 1.02$ 1.05$ 1.08$ 1.12$ 1.15$ 1.18$ 1.22$ 1.25$
Projected
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Rate Impact 3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%3.10%
SF Mo. Bill 33.34$ 34.37$ 35.44$ 36.54$ 37.67$ 38.84$ 40.04$ 41.28$ 42.56$ 43.88$ 45.24$
Change ($)1.03$ 1.07$ 1.10$ 1.13$ 1.17$ 1.20$ 1.24$ 1.28$ 1.32$ 1.36$
Projected
105
Table 6. Summary of Timber Harvest Alternatives Monthly Bill Impacts
In addition to the monthly single family bill impacts, a graph of the cumulative rate increases is provided
to show the range and spread of the timber harvest alternatives over time. As shown, the alternatives
show a cumulative rate impact ranging from a low of 33 percent to a high of 52 percent.
Summary
The water rate impacts were calculated using the existing 20-year financial plan completed during the
2022 Rate Update. The rate evaluation used the 2026-2035 time period for consistency with the time
horizon of the ULMP. Updated 2025 financial data and consistent capital cost assumptions were used in
each alternative. All alternatives developed meet total water system annual operating expenses, planned
and recommended capital needs, and debt service obligations. In addition, all alternatives maintain
minimum operating fund balance targets (44 days of O&M) and capital fund target of two percent of asset
value.
For over 45 years, the City has used revenue from timber sales to help fund essential projects that protect
and maintain critical infrastructure in the Union River Watershed. Maintaining existing harvest revenue
levels or increasing revenue will continue to help lower future water rates, and contribute to increased
reserves, allowing for flexibility in possible land acquisition if/when it may be available.
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
No Harvest 33.34$ 34.76$ 36.23$ 37.77$ 39.38$ 41.05$ 42.80$ 44.62$ 46.51$ 48.49$ 50.55$
Current Harvest 33.34$ 34.57$ 35.85$ 37.18$ 38.55$ 39.98$ 41.46$ 42.99$ 44.59$ 46.24$ 47.95$
50-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.31$ 35.30$ 36.33$ 37.38$ 38.46$ 39.58$ 40.73$ 41.91$ 43.12$ 44.37$
60-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.37$ 35.44$ 36.54$ 37.67$ 38.84$ 40.04$ 41.28$ 42.56$ 43.88$ 45.24$
Projected
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Timber Harvest Alternatives
Cumulative Rate Increases
No Harvest Current Harvest 50 Year Rotation 60 Year Rotation
106
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
APPENDIX C
Guidance for Evaluating New Uses on Utility Lands
107
Guidance for Evaluating New Uses on Utility Lands
Management Goals
1. The McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin will be managed to maintain the “unfiltered” water source
status in conjunction with maintaining the forest health.
2. The Other Utility Lands will be actively and adaptively managed to sustainably protect surface and
groundwater resources and maintain forest health and resiliency while also generating revenue
to reduce costs for utility rate payers.
Current Utility Land Use
The Utility has systems and structures in place to regulate and distribute water throughout the City of
Bremerton. As stated in the 2020 Water System Plan, “The Utility draws surface water from the Union
River Reservoir and groundwater from thirteen wells. Pump stations move water to higher pressure zones,
treated water reservoirs provide storage, and booster stations and regulating stations control pressures
within the system. Water is delivered to customers through 328 miles of distribution pipe.” (Bremer ton
2022). The following Utility land uses are present currently:
• The Utility owns, maintains, monitors, and operates reservoirs, wells, Casad dam, intake
facilities, pump stations, water treatment plants and tr ansmission mainline to supply drinking
water to the City of Bremerton.
• Wellhead protection zones are established, monitored, maintained, and protected by the Utility.
• Two biosolid application areas are established, monitored, and maintained for biosolid disposal
and to enhance tree growth in those areas.
• Road construction, and reforestation activities all take place in relation to timber harvest within
specified areas of Utility land.
• Maintenance of the forest roads, bridges, culverts and other facilities related to ongoing O&M
and to facilitate fire prevention and response.
Current Non-Utility Land Use
The Utility allows limited special uses of Utility land outside of Utility operations contained to specific
special use areas. These uses include recreation, fisheries enhancement, utility rights-of-way, and
commercial use. However, increased public use can bring increased risk to water and forest resources
along with an increased need for management and monitoring. Therefore, the Utility must carefully
consider potential impacts when considering these uses. These uses include recreation, fisheries
enhancement, utility rights-of-way, and commercial use. The following land uses occur on Utility land:
• The Gold Mountain Golf Course is owned by the City of Bremerton (City) and managed by the
Department of Parks and Recreation under a lease agreement with the water utility.
108
• Jarstad Park is a Public Works and Utilities park which serves as a space for public events and
yearly education and outreach to the community such as Kids Fishing Day and Salmon Tours.
• Through a lease agreement with the Utility, the Suquamish Tribe operates its largest salmon
rearing facility on Gorst Creek at Jarstad Park.
• Major regional power and natural gas providers including Puget Sound Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, Cascade Natural Gas, and several tower management companies lease right-of-
way to bring critical services to the Bremerton region.
• The Sergeant Honsowetz Police Firearms Training Facility is used for regional police training.
Evaluation of New Land Uses
New land uses should be compatible with the management objectives outlined by the Utility above. Water
source protection must be prioritized when future uses are considered. Consider the following questions
below when evaluating a new land use:
• Would the proposed land use affect the future use of surface water sources?
• Would the proposed land use result in a higher level of water quality treatment?
• Would the proposed land use be compatible with the existing wellhead protection program for
groundwater supplies?
• Would the proposed land use be a potential contaminant source as identified by the City of
Bremerton Water System Plan (2020) in Table 4 and listed in the Potential Contamination Source
List below? If yes, could the potential risk of contamination be adequately mitigated?
• Would the proposed land use take productive forest land out of production and adversely impact
timber revenue?
• Would the proposed land use be compatible with existing wildlife and fisheries requirements such
as high water quality, instream flows, protection of wetlands and potentially negatively affect
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout or chum salmon habitat
• Would the proposed land use affect the viewscape currently afforded to the Bremerton
community?
• Would the proposed land use affect other uses such as recreational activities, educational
activities, right-of-way agreements, minor forest product sales contracts, and/or recycling of
biosolids?
• How close to potential water intakes would the land use be?
• Would the proposed land use be located at a site needed for future Utility facilities?
• Would the proposed land use have potential to increase invasive species or pests on Utility lands?
• Would the proposed land use comply with the wildfire protection plan?
• Would the proposed land use reduce resiliency in relation to climate change?
109
Potential Contamination Source List from EES et. al 1996, Table E-2
• Above ground storage tanks
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste treatment
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste storage
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material storage
• Animal feedlots
• Containers
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste storage
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material storage
• Deep Injection Wells
o Wastewater disposal wells
o Oil and gas activity disposal wells
o Mineral extraction disposal wells
• De-icing salts storage piles
• Fertilizer applications
• Graveyards
• Groundwater/surface water cross contamination
• Irrigation practices (return flow)
• Land applications
o Wastewater application (spray irrigation)
o Wastewater by-product (sludge) application
o Petroleum refining waste application
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste application
• Landfills
o Industrial hazardous and non-hazardous landfill
o Municipal sanitary landfill
• Material transfer operations
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste transfers
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material transfers
• Materials stockpiles
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material
• Mining and mine drainage
• Natural leaching
• Open dumps
• Pesticide applications
• Pipelines
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste storage
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material storage
• Radioactive disposal sites
• Salt water intrusion
110
• Septic tanks
o Houses
o Apartments
o Small businesses
• Shallow injection wells
o Agricultural drainage wells
o Automobile service station disposal wells
o Industrial process water disposal wells
• Storm water drainage wells
• Surface impoundments
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste cesspools, ponds lagoons, and other
impoundments
• Transportation of materials
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material
• Underground storage tanks
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste treatment
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste storage
o Hazardous and non-hazardous material storage
• Urban runoff
• Waste piles
o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste piles
• Waste tailings
o Heap leaching piles
o Non-heap leaching piles
References
City of Bremerton (Bremerton). 2022. Department of Public Works & Utilities 2020 Water System Plan.
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., Washington Timberland Management, Inc., Northwest Aerial
Reconnaissance, Inc, and Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (EES et al.) 1996. Utility Land Management Plan, City
of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Volumes I and II.
111
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
APPENDIX D
Advisory Committee
112
DRAFT FINAL
Background and purpose
The City of Bremerton owns and manages approximately 8,000 acres of Utility land. Approximately
3,000 acres of this land are the Union River Watershed. Within this watershed is the surface water
source for the City's water utility. In 1986 the City created a Utility Land Management Plan to provide
guidance on the management of these lands. The plan has not been updated since 1996. The purpose of
this Advisory Committee is to help inform the process of updating this plan in conjunction with current
best scientific based practices.
Key goals for this updated plan are:
• Evaluate Utility Land Security.
• Evaluate land use of adjacent properties and potential conflicts with the City's on-going
operations.
• Evaluate proposed Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian trail to identify
potential conflicts with the City's on-going operations.
• Evaluate sustainable timber harvest alternatives and associated revenue and water rate
impacts.
• Review carbon credit sales as a potential additional or alternative source of revenue and
water rate impacts.
• Develop a 20-year capital improvement plan for forestry assets such as roads, culverts,
bridges, etc.
• Evaluate staffing to confirm appropriate staffing levels.
The working group is supported by Mason, Bruce, and Girard (the consultant tasked with updating the
plan) and its team of sub-consultants, and the City of Bremerton.
This charter is presented to include information on the ULMPAC scope, membership and operating
guidelines. In addition, the meeting plan serves as a reference to all working group members, supporting
City staff, and the facilitation team throughout the review process.
ULMPAC objectives and scope
The objective of this advisory committee is to review, comment and make recommendations on
materials provided by consultant team and the City of Bremerton. The review will include, but will not
be limited to, draft portions of the Plan, summaries of subject-specific best available science, and key
policy issues. These issues will be discussed over a series of meetings. Recommendations made by the
Advisory Committee will be considered by the City of Bremerton staff in developing the Plan that will
eventually be approved by City Council.
Utility and Land Management
Advisory Committee
Charter and Operating Guidelines
DRAFT FINAL
113
DRAFT FINAL
The City will invite technical experts from regulatory agencies, adjacent Forest landowners, and adjacent
water purveyors to convene an Advisory Committee to provide input during the Plan update. In
addition, as the subject lands are utility-owned, up to two utility ratepayer representatives, appointed
by the Mayor, will be invited to participate. The consultant team will engage additional stakeholders
outside of the Advisory Committee to inform deliberations. Findings from stakeholder engagement
discussions will be reported to the Advisory Committee.
The Advisory Committee will meet five (5) times during the course of this plan update. Additionally,
there will be one field tour to help the Committee get acquainted with the lands that are subject to the
plan.
ULMPAC membership
ULMPAC members include a comprehensive set of stakeholder perspectives. The ULMPAC is being
convened specifically to consider changes to the existing plan, community impacts of these changes,
scientific data collected during this process, policy implications of alternatives, and provide input and
recommendations to the City of Bremerton. The ULMPAC will work to review and understand the scope
of the issues, potential solutions, and tradeoffs of these options.
ULMPAC member Affiliation/Title
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Debbie Kay Suquamish Tribe, Forest Ecologist
Jacki Brown City of Port Orchard, Utility Manager
Mark Mauren Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum
Kitsap Public Health District, Environmental Health
Specialist 1 Solid & Hazardous Waste Program
Stan Hoffman
WA Department of Health, Watershed Protection Program
Coordinator
Nathan McReynolds
WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District
Manager
Will Maupin Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Nick Wofford Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Jessica Bryant
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
Regional Land Use Planner Region 6
Project Leadership
The City of Bremerton Public Works and Utilities Project Manager is Sean Walsh, and the Public Works
and Utilities Director is Tom Knuckey. Public Works’ role in this process is to take recommendations
from the ULMPAC and use those recommendations to create a draft plan. That plan will then go to
Bremerton City Council for approval, who will also receive periodic project updates and briefings.
114
DRAFT FINAL
Facilitation Team
The City of Bremerton has contracted the services of a neutral third-party facilitation team from
EnviroIssues (www.enviroissues.com) to support the ULMPAC processes. The facilitation team supports
the City and ULMPAC members and maintains the integrity of the ULMPAC process. Specifically, the
facilitator will:
• Remain neutral.
• Not contribute substantive ideas.
• Help the ULMPAC accomplish their tasks.
• Suggest and implement process ideas.
• Help the ULMPAC abide by their adopted ground rules.
• Solicit and field input and observations on the ULMPAC processes and consider modifications to
improve the processes.
Meeting Protocols
• ULMPAC meetings will be convened and led by the City of Bremerton and actively managed by the
facilitator to ensure that discussions are consistent with the ULMPAC charter and that feedback and
findings and alternatives are advanced in a timely manner.
• Dialogue between ULMPAC members will be supported by a number of non-committee resource
staff from the City of Bremerton and partners. Unless presenting information or responding to
questions, staff will remain in a listening role.
• Members will agree to meeting ground rules with the team’s facilitator and agree to abide by them.
• Members will make their best effort to attend all meetings and notify the facilitator or City staff in
advance if unable to attend. Meetings will be scheduled in advance based on best availability and up
to monthly during the project’s most active phase. Meetings will be virtual, except for the kickoff
meeting and one additional meeting held in conjunction with a site tour.
• Meetings are not open to the public and no public comment will be taken at meetings; members of
the public may share comments and ideas via email and at City Council meetings.
• Meeting materials will be distributed a minimum of 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Members
will be asked to review all materials in advance and come prepared to participate. The project staff
will make every effort to ensure meeting materials are finalized at the time of distribution; however,
there may be instances where materials or updated versions of materials are provided at the
meeting.
• Meetings will begin and end on time. If agenda items cannot be completed on time, the ULMPAG
will decide if the meeting should be extended or the discussion continued at the next scheduled
meeting.
• Meeting summaries will be produced for each meeting by the facilitation staff to reflect team
discussion, feedback, areas of agreement and tasks and assignments related to advancement of the
team’s work. Draft summaries will be distributed and team members given the opportunity to clarify
or edit the summary to make sure it accurately reflects the meeting.
Meeting Ground Rules
These ground rules are proposed and will be agreed to, with any proposed amendments by members at
their first meeting:
• Share ideas openly and succinctly; listen openly to ideas, concerns and criticisms from others
115
DRAFT FINAL
• Avoid repeating what has already been said
• Express disagreements and concerns constructively
• Ask questions to uncover important information and assumptions
• Honor the agenda and remain focused on topic
Communication
• Members are expected to share information with their organizations and/or constituents and gather
information from their constituents to help inform discussions.
• Members will not take actions or discuss issues in any way that undermines an open and
transparent process.
• Members will notify the facilitator and City project manager of all requests from the media and
council members. ULMPAC-related documents are not to be shared with members of the media
until they have been finalized and are ready for public distribution.
• Support staff is available at and between meetings to address questions, concerns, and ideas. Staff
will respond to all member inquiries in a timely manner.
Decision-making process
All members will be encouraged to take a proactive approach to this process and to look for creative
solutions rather than problems. While it is important to identify problems, it is even more important to
seek thoughtful solutions that advance the project.
Recommendations to City of Bremerton Public Works will be made. Members will work together to fulfill
the team charter and seek to achieve consensus to the extent possible. For the purpose of this effort,
consensus is achieved when all members can say:
I am supportive of this decision or choice.
OR
While I may not be fully supportive of this decision or choice,
I can live with it and I will not oppose it.
116
Bremerton Utility Land Management
Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting #1 Summary
Thursday, January 25, 2024
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Name Affiliation
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Tom Knuckey City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Director
Cami Apfelbeck City of Bremerton, Water Resources Manager
Debbie Kay Suquamish Tribe, Forest Ecologist
Jacki Brown City of Port Orchard, Utility Manager
Mark Mauren Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum Kitsap Public Health District, Program Coordinator for the Healthy
Environments
Stan Hoffman WA Department of Health, Watershed Protection Program
Coordinator
Nathan McReynolds WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District Manager
Will Maupin Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Nick Wofford Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Jessica Bryant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Regional Land
Use Planner Region 6
Brent Keller Forester, Mason Bruce and Gerard
Wendy Wente Project Manager, Mason Bruce and Gerard
Ryan Orth Committee Facilitator, EnviroIssues
Alex Cole Facilitation Support, EnviroIssues
Summary:
The Utility and Land Management Advisory Committee (ULMPAC) met on January, 25, 2024 for the first of
five meetings in support of the City of Bremerton Utility Land Management Plan process. The meeting
began with a round of introductions before Sean Walsh, the city’s project manager, and Wendy Wente
consultant project manager, presented an overview of the project purpose, goals, scope of work, tasks and
schedule. The main focus of this first meeting was introducing the committee and project background, and
a discussion of the goals for the project. Please refer to the presentation slides for additional details
shared on project background.
117
After the project background was presented, committee members asked questions about the proposed
goals and offered their perspectives on the project. Sean and Wendy, with assistance from Cami Apfelbeck
and Tom Knuckey, answered as many questions as they could in the allotted time.
The two project goals that were shared with the group are as follows:
---------
Goal 1: The Union River Basin will be managed to maintain the “unfiltered” water source status in
conjunction with maintaining the forest health.
Goal 2: (original) The Other Utility Lands shall be managed with the protection of surface waters for
“filtered” water resource and protection of groundwater, in conjunction with maintaining forest health
and generating revenue from timber harvest.
Goal 2: (revised) The Other Utility Lands will be actively and adaptively managed to sustainably protect
surface and groundwater resources and maintain forest health and resiliency while also generating
revenue to reduce costs for utility ratepayers.
---------
The Committee was advised that the first goal’s language was firm and only the second goal was up for
revision/input. Below is a synopsis of the topics that were discussed and responses, where given:
Overall process
• Members shared several questions related to overall process in relation to goal statements.
o Staff shared that goals are the driving force behind the plan and will guide decisions about
special topics. Collaboration with different agencies is key and the new plan will guide
collaborative efforts despite existing rules. Objectives to achieve goals have been flexible
over time. The intention is to ensure necessary work gets done for long-term goals.
Definitions and language within the goals
• What are the specific implications of the language in first goal with respect to unfiltered water
source status/ general clarification on the meaning of the first goal for the City. In addition, there
was interest about the removal of the filtered portion in the revised second goal.
o Staff responded that the City views the term "filtered" as redundant and that’s why it was
taken out of the second goal. Protecting water quality inherently involves keeping it
filtered. If an emergency should necessitate the use of these waters, we can provide
mobile filtration. Therefore, we want the water quality to be as high as possible to limit
the amount of filtration needed.
• What is the practical meaning of managing for resiliency in the second goal and does "resiliency"
replace the term "work protection":
o Staff shared that resilience involves examining past practices like thinning and is a way to
ensure the area continues to meet landscape goals. It considers factors like road system
management, density, and buffer sizes. The City aims to maintain a healthy watershed for
clean and healthy water production.
• Members made additional suggestions for minor edits to improve the readability of the second
goal.
118
o Staff will make suggested edits for ULMPAC review.
Ecological factors
• Members had questions about how changes will be made to standards and best practices based
on rapidly changing conditions due to climate change. There was also interest in addressing
invasive species, specifically Japanese Knotweed.
o Staff shared that Adaptive Management addresses climate, forest health, wildfire impacts,
and invasive species.
• Asked about any protected or endangered species that might restrict uses.
o Endangered species have been considered, and current forest practices consider Spotted
Owl and Marbled Murrelet.
• A question about the involvement of the Suquamish Tribe in the "adaptive management" process
and a highlight of the importance of Tribal access for traditional gathering within the City of
Bremerton.
o Certain areas may allow additional uses due to fewer restrictions. Goal one, focusing on
unfiltered water, implies more restricted uses in that area. However, this process will
involve the advisory committee, including discussion of special topics.
• Seeking more information on hydrology and block management.
o More information on hydrology will be provided in upcoming meetings.
• Emphasized the need for a long-term perspective beyond 5 or 10 years.
o The information gathered in the current process will inform decisions about protection in
the future. The plan operates on a 10-year revision cycle, but long-term perspectives are
being considered in the development of the management side.
Revenue
• Asked about any restrictions on the definition of revenue.
o Staff noted that the consideration of revenue is a notable aspect in the current planning
process. City hasn't reviewed forest management revenue in 30 years.
o The plan takes into account the need to assess and potentially revise forest management
revenue strategies.
• Interested in how forest harvest can be maintained while protecting health.
o Forest health is a significant factor in cost considerations. The condition of the forest
directly affects revenue-related decisions.
o Filtered water source maintenance is crucial for cost control.
• Highlighted the importance of lowering costs for customers.
o Staff emphasized maintaining low utility rates and recognizes the importance of a
comprehensive approach to revenue considerations for sustained low utility rates over
time.
The virtual whiteboard (Mural) that was used to track the discussion live at the meeting can be found
here.
Next Steps:
• The next meeting is not yet scheduled, another meeting availability poll will be sent out along with
this meeting summary
119
• The Advisory Committee Charter and Operating Guidelines will also be sent out via email.
Members will be asked to review this document on their own time and confirm they’ve read and
accept the guidelines by email before the next meeting.
• The project team will incorporate edits to the goal statements and present them at Meeting #2.
• Field work is underway for the Resources Assessment report; ULMPAC members will receive an
update on these activities and findings at their next meeting.
120
Bremerton Utility Land Management
Plan Advisory Committee
Field Tour Summary
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Name Affiliation
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Tom Knuckey City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Director
Cami Apfelbeck
Molly Henderson
Derick Leuenberger
City of Bremerton, Water Utility Manager
City of Bremerton, Forestry Service Specialist
City of Bremerton, Forestry Service Specialist
David Denis
Mark Mauren
City of Bremerton Public Works, Forester
Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum Kitsap Public Health District, Program Coordinator for the Healthy
Environments
Nathan McReynolds WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District Manager
Will Maupin Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Nick Wofford Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Brent Keller Forester, Mason Bruce and Girard
Wendy Wente Project Manager, Mason Bruce and Girard
Ryan Orth Committee Facilitator, EnviroIssues
Alex Cole Facilitation Support, EnviroIssues
Summary:
The Utility and Land Management Advisory Committee (ULMPAC) met on April 23, 2024 to participate in a
field tour to learn more about several topics relating to the update of the City of Bremerton’s Utility Land
Management Plan. The tour included stops relevant to water supply/security, forest management and
sustainable harvest, and the proposed Kitsap Lake Trail project. Please refer to tour packet materials for
additional details of the tour agenda and reference maps.
The following is a summary of presentation and discussion at each of the tour locations:
121
Union River Reservoir: water security and managing unfiltered system status
Cami Apfelback, City of Bremerton Water Resources Manager, provided an overview of the water system,
Union River Reservoir, and Casad Dam.
• The City of Bremerton’s water system maintains an unfiltered status but does receive UV
treatment. There is no public access to the Union River drainage surrounding the reservoir.
• The City has a long history of managing water from the Union River, including movement of water
in the Twin Lakes, Gorst Creek areas, and construction of infrastructure for transmission of water
to the City.
• Utility lands include portions of the Union and Gorst drainages. The Union drainage feeds the
City’s reservoir and the City of Bremerton owns 98% of the drainage area, including procurement
of other buffer lands in 1929-1931 in the Gorst drainage. The City has utilized a management
strategy to trade land and secure this watershed for over 100 years.
• In 1938, a wildfire burned approximately 2,500 acres, nearly the entire Union drainage area.
Wildfire remains a significant risk to the maintenance of water quality.
• Casad Dam was built in 1955-1957 at a cost of $2M. The dam is built into 60 ft. of bedrock and has
been evaluated and deemed seismically stable in the event of a large earthquake. The dam itself is
130 ft. tall, 416 ft. wide, and 56 ft. thick at the base. The reservoir is approximately 40 acres in
area and holds 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water. The dam sits at 643 ft. in elevation above sea
level, allowing for a gravity-fed system and great energy savings.
• In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the EPA began requiring filtration to reduce water-borne pathogens in
drinking water systems across the country. Exemptions would be granted with adequate testing
for giardia and cryptosporidium. The City of Bremerton successfully attained “unfiltered status”
during this period. However, this exemption would be reversed if pathogens were detected at any
point.
• By law, areas with unfiltered water are prohibited from allowing public recreation. Timber harvest
is also limited. It is done far from the reservoir and, up to this point, has been focused on forest
health.
• The state Department of Health conducts an annual review of the City’s documentation to ensure
compliance with state and federal regulations in maintaining unfiltered status. Wildfire and public
access remain the top areas of risk and concern.
• If the City were required to move from unfiltered status due to presence of contamination, current
estimates are $40M to build a filtration facility, and ~$1M annual operating cost.
• A fire of any size will impact water quality due to ash and turbidity. This would result in turning off
the system and continuous monitoring. The City would have approximately 18 months to install
filtration.
• The City coordinates on an annual basis with Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
on its Fire Plan and has established clear expectations with the Department regarding protecting
the reservoir. This includes avoiding use of fire retardants in the watershed, as well as disinfection
of dip buckets, if they are to be used at all.
122
Toothpick Harvest: resource inventory, sustainable harvest and management approaches
Sean Walsh, City of Bremerton Forestry Manager, and Brent Keller, Mason, Bruce and Girard, provided
background on the City’s forestry management practices and sustainable timber harvest.
• This is a site of a more recent harvest/thinning, referred to as the “Toothpick Harvest”,
approximately 20 acres which has since been replanted with approx. 6,000 seedlings, with the City
planting an average of 20-30,000 seedlings a year. The area had reached its maximum growth
potential, and there was extensive root rot throughout the stand.
• The previous resource inventory was completed in 2016. Mason, Bruce, and Girard has nearly
completed the updated resource inventory. Preliminary estimates show approximately 100M
board feet of timber potentially available (if harvesting all lands for revenue). In the past, thinning
and selling poles have been the only source of harvest; everything that can be thinned on Utility
lands at this point has been. The purpose of this plan update is to inform major decisions for the
future.
• There are approximately 8,000 acres of Utility forestlands, with about 3,000 acres within the
Union Drainage with the remaining acreage outside of areas critical to maintaining reservoir water
quality. The resource inventory includes an age description of the forest, which informs a harvest
plan. Many of the stands are ~70 years old, the product of natural reforestation following the fire
in the late 1930’s. A hypothetical sustainable harvest model would ensure an even distribution of
age of trees across the Utility lands.
• On a 60-year rotation, this could translate to 3M board/ft per year (with harvest managed on an
acreage basis, not on an absolute volume basis). This is approximately three times the harvest
assumption based on the previous inventory. While harvest would be managed to maximize water
quality in the Union drainage, management of forest within Gorst drainage may have a different
objective.
• Harvest can affect water quantity and quality, generating additional runoff and less
evapotranspiration, while also potentially increasing water turbidity. The forest is managed with
DNR Forest Management Practices and a 250-foot buffer around the Union Reservoir is a best
management policy. The City’s current water supply is good, not reliant upon snowmelt, with 60%
of the City’s supply provided by the reservoir and additional available groundwater supply.
• Wildlife management has had a minimal role in forest management to date. Hunting is not
allowed on Utility lands, and Habitat Conservation Plans for the protection of listed species have
not been in effect. Improving wildlife habitat hasn’t been a policy consideration up to this point,
although the City may want to develop policies in the future. A Habitat Management Plan would
describe target species and approaches to manage for early, mid, or late-successional forest.
Participants noted that there may be a mid- or late-successional management opportunity on
portions of Utility lands that would be unique to the Kitsap Peninsula.
• The team is researching carbon sequestration markets. The basic approach involves a credit per
metric ton of carbon and the market in Western Washington is currently about $16/credit. Value
can be estimated with a standing baseline that affects forest management. In addition to limiting
management options, it was noted that participating in a carbon market is fairly involved and
would require more time from Forestry staff. Participants commented that carbon credits would
not stack up against timber harvest in terms of revenue, require long-term commitments that
would encumber future policymakers, and that playing a leadership role in young markets can be
risky.
123
• Development rights may be another management opportunity. Transfer of held development
rights to other projects can be a source of revenue, assuming those development rights will not be
exercised. Based on zoning, Utility lands may include a 1-in-20 or 1-in-40 right. Due to current land
use on Utility lands and the lack of development, it may be difficult to demonstrate “additionality,”
the principle that there would be a different outcome with a given action.
Biosolids: application of biosolids on Utility lands
• The City manages application of biosolids on 500 acres of Utility lands, bisected by the Gold
Mountain Golf Course. Biosolids are applied to 20 different areas. Solids are dewatered at the
wastewater treatment plant into a cake-like material and delivered to storage. The solids are
applied once per month over the course of two weeks.
• 100% of the City’s biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant are used in land application. The
City has 6-8 months of total storage capacity. Alternate disposal of the solids would require
trucking to Eastern Oregon at a cost of $30-$40K per month.
Jarstad Park Trail: development of a transportation project and implications for Utility land
management
Participants discussed potential development of a trail from Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake Park and its
relationship to Utility land management. The following comments were shared, focused on issues related
to access and maintenance of the Utility’s water quality:
• Improving security
o The level of protection cannot back-slide; increased use must result in increased
protection.
o A question as to whether fencing would be necessary on both sides of the trail to
discourage trespassing and to provide clear direction (signage may not be adequate).
o Concerns about houseless people using the trail to access camping on Utility lands. While
it is farther away from the city-center and services, the Utility has encountered
encampments in the forest in the past, including near their wellheads.
o The Navy Railroad is used by people walking in to access the forest.
o Patrol and enforcement will be necessary. Kitsap Lake Park closes at dusk and the trail may
need to be closed during nighttime hours. The trail would need to be added to patrol
routes and primary enforcement would need to be after hours (daytime patrol can be
done by staff).
o While the Union drainage is the primary area of concern for water quality, the Gorst
watershed is a backup source of water for the City and needs to be protected, as well.
o A fire break may be needed given the increased activity.
• Costs/maintenance
o A question as to who would be responsible for security and maintenance costs. Utility
funds cannot be used to address a problem that it didn’t create.
o These are not public lands, but Utility lands purchased by rate-payer fees. There is a need
to show a benefit to the rate-payer.
• Other facilities
o The proposed trail alignment goes through a Suquamish hatchery facility and Utility-
owned buildings, which may require realignment to avoid impacts
124
o Need to consider how to make the 2000 Road multi-purpose to accommodate potentially
conflicting uses, including logging trucks. Access includes City crews, Cascade Natural Gas,
Bonneville Power Administration, communication companies, and logging under City
contract.
o The group also stopped along the alignment of the proposed trail and discussed a few
additional details:
▪ An additional gate would be needed at the Y in the road leading to Union
Drainage.
▪ The City’s water transmission main is underneath the proposed trail route along
the paved road; construction could affect the line, and maintenance of the line
could affect the trail.
Next Steps:
• ULMPAC members are encouraged to share any additional comments or questions with the team;
the next ULMPAC meeting is targeted for a late May/June timeframe.
• The City is nearly finished with the Resources Assessment and will share those results with the
ULMPAC at its next meeting.
• Discussion of special topics addressed on the tour will be included in forthcoming memoranda,
which will be available for ULMPAC review.
125
Monday, September 9, 2024
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Name Affiliation
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Tom Knuckey City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Director
Cami Apfelbeck City of Bremerton, Water Resources Manager
Debbie Kay Suquamish Tribe, Forest Ecologist
Mark Mauren Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum Kitsap Public Health District, Program Coordinator for the Healthy
Environments
Stan Hoffman WA Department of Health, Watershed Protection Program
Coordinator
Nathan McReynolds WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District Manager
Will Maupin Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Nick Wofford Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Jessica Bryant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Regional Land
Use Planner Region 6
Brent Keller Forester, Mason Bruce and Gerard
Wendy Wente Project Manager, Mason Bruce and Gerard
Ryan Orth Committee Facilitator, EnviroIssues
Alex Cole Facilitation Support, EnviroIssues
Action Items:
Task Lead
Share simplified developable parcel map with MB&G Cami
Summary
The Utility and Land Management Advisory Committee (ULMPAC) met on September 9, 2024 to
discuss the results of the Resource Assessment Report Submitted by Mason, Bruce & Girard to the
City of Bremerton. The meeting began with a recap of the field tour that the ULMPAC took in April.
Wendy Wente and Brent Keller provided an overview of the Resource Assessment Report. Finally,
members discussed special topics that were identified at the outset of the project and will be
addressed in the plan update.
Utility and Land Management
Advisory Committee
Meeting #3 Summary
126
The special topic discussion was organized for members to share comments on a Mural board,
around the following areas:
o Sustainable harvest alternatives
o Carbon credits
o Adjacent properties/security
o Jarstad Park trail
o Other topics (including Capital Improvement Plan and Staffing levels)
After members responded to the exercise, the group then walked through the comments. Sean
Walsh, Cami Apfelbeck, Wendy Wente, and Brent Keller answered questions and commented on the
topics that members shared.
The following is a summary of the questions and ideas that were raised during this meeting, both
verbally and on the Mural board, along with the responses provided by the team.
Questions asked during the presentation:
Question/Comment Response
Can harvest mimic a forest fire or other natural
occurrence?
• Harvest removes all of the trees, which
leaves a similar situation to when a fire
burns and kills all of the trees in an area.
It’s similar to any natural mass die-off
event for the forest.
• Douglas Fir is not a very shade tolerant
tree; clear-cutting an area allows the
Douglas Firs access to light so they can
grow.
Discussion around special topics:
Question/ Comment Response
What has historical harvest looked like in the
City?
• The City has thinned the forests (cut
down marketable timber in places that
will be beneficial to forest health) to the
extent that is feasible.
• Reintroducing bio-diversity is another
motivation for timber harvest.
Identify cost impacts, etc. if the Climate
Commitment Act (CCA) is repealed in the
November 2024 election.
Is there research into carbon
crediting/increased carbon sequestration?
• Mason, Bruce, & Girard is looking at
options that are available in Washington
for carbon crediting, including
alternatives to CCA.
• Robust monitoring is needed for carbon
credits, some are permanent credits
and others are term credits.
Management plans are tailored
accordingly. There is risk that if
something significant, like a fire, occurs,
127
we would need to change the plan to
recoup the credit that was lost.
• If other city projects emerge that would
involve cutting down a stand, it would
require a change in the management
plan or making up for lost carbon credits
in another area of Bremerton lands.
• Nisqually Forest is a good example of an
entity to reach out to talk about carbon
credits. About Us - Nisqually Land Trust;
How a carbon market is fueling change
in the Nisqually Community Forest –
KIRO 7 News Seattle
Would DOH view a trail as a reduction in
protection?
Stan Hoffman reported that DOH staff were
queried about this issue at a recent meeting;
the general reaction was not supportive, but
there hasn’t been a formal discussion or
determination by the department.
Issues raised included concern about whether
this constitutes a change in approach to
watershed protection. In this case, DOH may
ask the City to lay out their reasoning and take
ownership as part of the annual watershed
inspection.
The City is encouraged to engage with regional
and state DOH staff to gain a more definitive
opinion.
The Suquamish Tribe would like to see the plan
address access to the watershed for plant
gathering opportunities, in addition to
assertions about how Bremerton will be good
neighbors to tribal fish hatcheries.
While no formal agreement currently to allow
tribal use of lands for cultural purposes, access
is granted informally. Debbie Kay clarified that
wording in the plan that highlights the City’s
support of these allowances would be
adequate.
Additional comments and questions about the special topics shared by members and staff during
the meeting included the following:
• Stan Hoffman asked the City to consider the potential impacts of PFAS in biosolids with
respect to watershed or other property application. There are PFAS with Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) now.
• The Gorst Subarea Plan included a Gorst Basin Plan; this identified additional environmental
assets to protect.
• Would relocating the proposed trail further to the east reduce the potential for losing our
unfiltered status?
• What watershed security features would be required for our unfiltered status to remain intact
with this new use of the Utility Lands? Cost?
128
• What is the cost (Capital, operating, rate impact) that would result if we were to lose our
unfiltered status?
Next steps
The project team thanked members for the discussion and described the prospective schedule for
completion of the project. Members were encouraged to share any further comments on the
Resource Assessment Report and to expect a request for availability for the next meeting in
September or October.
Anticipated project milestones
• Sept. 25: City Council Study Session
• September/October: AC Meeting #4 on Special Topics
• November: Draft Updated Plan out for public comment
• December: AC #5 Comments on Plan
• Early 2025: City Council Study Session
• Early 2025: Final Updated Plan Presented to City Council
129
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Name Affiliation
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Tom Knuckey City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Director
Cami Apfelbeck City of Bremerton, Water Utility Manager
Mark Mauren Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum Kitsap Public Health District, Program Coordinator for the Healthy
Environments
Stan Hoffman WA Department of Health (DOH), Watershed Protection Program
Coordinator
Nathan McReynolds WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District Manager
Nick Wofford
Will Maupin
Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Jessica Bryant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Regional Land
Use Planner Region 6
Brent Keller Forester, Mason Bruce and Girard
Wendy Wente Project Manager, Mason Bruce and Girard
Ryan Orth Committee Facilitator, EnviroIssues
Alex Cole Facilitation Support, EnviroIssues
Action Items:
Task Lead
Share summary and PowerPoint presentation from Meeting #4 Sean
Summary
The Utility and Land Management Advisory Committee (ULMPAC) met on December 17, 2024 to
review the Special Topics Memoranda, submitted by Mason, Bruce & Girard to the City of Bremerton.
The meeting began with introductions and a review of the agenda, as well as information on the
updated project schedule. The schedule is expected as follows:
• December 2024: AC Meeting #4 on Special Topics (today’s meeting)
• March 2025: AC #5 on Draft Updated Plan
Utility and Land Management
Advisory Committee
Meeting #4 Summary
130
•April 2025: Draft Updated Plan out for public comment
•April 2025: City Council Study Session #2 on Special Topics
•June 2025: City Council Study Session #3 on Draft Plan
•August 2025: Final Updated Plan Presented to City Council
The Special Topics Memoranda flndings were the focus of this meeting and included background and
discussion on the following topics:
o Sustainable harvest alternatives
o Carbon credits
o Adjacent properties/security
o Jarstad Park trail
o Other topics (including Capital Improvement Plan and Staffing levels)
The following is a summary of the questions and ideas that were raised during this meeting, along
with the responses provided by the team.
Discussion around special topics
Adjacent properties/ security
•Adjacent landowners are seeing an increase of trespass and use of lands – usually hikers
•Ueland Tree Farm is having discussions with the Great Peninsula Conservancy about
purchase of lands that they currently have some conservation rights on; GPC would like to
own them outright.
•DOH would prefer forest to a housing development from a water security standpoint.
•Turbidity is usually the thing that impedes water quality in the system. With unflltered
sources, that means that in a catastrophic event, we would have to shut the water system
down until we're able to build a flltration plant.
•There is a WAC related to DHS determining the need for flltration (criteria to remain unflltered,
WAC 246-290-690). Another WAC addresses compliance requirements and timelines for
installing flltration, if required (WAC 246-240-686[8]). “The purveyor, in response to a written
notification by the department, shall install filtration within eighteen months.” DOH noted that
the timeline would likely be more fiexible based on what is realistic.
•WAC 246-290-668 requires that the City maintain a watershed control program and
evaluation requirements, including any “Changes in the watershed that could adversely
affect source water quality that have occurred since the last watershed evaluation”.
Trail
•The trail is a City Council priority to explore, so if we can provide them with concrete
information on the costs and beneflts, that will be beneflcial.
•If interest groups want to provide recreation sources, then they should partner with the
conservation group that is trying to preserve the tree-farm land. Then they will have an
alternative where they don’t have to cut into buffers that are already there, and we can
protect more land while providing recreational opportunities.
131
o Response: Interest in this trail is primarily to address a connectivity issue, trying to
walk/bike/etc. from Port Orchard to Bremerton. There appear to be few alternatives to
make this connection, a driver for the interest in the trail on utility lands.
Sustainable Timber Harvest
• Harvesting isn’t so much of a DOH concern, as long as it’s being done in a way that respects
water quality. The forest doesn’t need to be completely untouched and sometimes that isn’t
even the best thing for forest health. A responsible timber harvest is not the kind of thing that
DOH would be alarmed by.
• Sometimes the thought is that any harvest in the Union River Basin is scary. But the forestry
department is very careful about where they choose to harvest, how frequently, and going
above and beyond with water quality protections while harvesting. That is evident by the fact
that they have not seen changes in water quality during harvest.
o Outside of the Union River Basin there may be an opportunity to do more harvest and
generate more revenue.
o Response: We don’t want to be seen as generating revenue from the Union Harvest
Area. We have historically harvested there since the 1980s and have maintained
unflltered status while doing so. Yes, we have generated revenue but that is not the
main motivator. Though we have a responsibility to manage things flscally, the main
goal has always been forest health.
Carbon Credits
• When it comes to carbon credits, it may pay off for the City to look at other City owned
property that isn’t Utility land that is in a state where it could be converted back to forest. If
we want to be environmental stewards and at least meet or exceed the cost of administering
the program, that seems like an effective way to do so.
• There are programs in other states that allow the aggregation of properties. If that happens in
Washington, it might be a good option as well.
• The basic analysis that is part of the plan looks at options for what the best revenue
generators would be.
Capital Improvement Plan
• Capital improvements are things the City would have to maintain regardless of timber
harvest. We have this infrastructure that we have to be able to upkeep in order to access our
land and other infrastructure. Timber harvest helps subsidize the cost of maintenance.
Staffing Levels
• Keep in mind that staffing levels would change if there was a big change for the surrounding
area (like adding the trail).
• In the conclusion of the trail memo, it was established that there is a need for a feasibility
study. If the trail goes in, there will need to be big changes in staffing and we will need to think
through thoughtfully and carefully how the City is impacted.
132
• The City does have an asset management program now, and are more formally tracking work
hours associated with speciflc work areas and tasks. This provides data to show typical full-
time equivalent (FTE) hours. As work activities increase, it will be easier to provide
information to Council about appropriate staffing levels needed.
• Staffing has been stable at four people from the initiation of the forestry division. As things
change, there is a potential for adding more positions but for now there is a need to be
efficient with the existing staff. That is something that will continua lly be looked at as needs
change over time.
Next steps
The project team thanked members for the discussion and described the prospective schedule for
completion of the project. Members were encouraged to share any further comments on the Special
Topics Memoranda and to expect a request for availability for the next meeting in March 2025.
133
Tuesday, May 6, 2025
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Name Affiliation
Sean Walsh City of Bremerton Public Works, Forestry Manager
Tom Knuckey City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Director
Mark Mauren Ueland Tree Farm, CEO
Rudy Baum Kitsap Public Health District, Program Coordinator for the Healthy
Environments
Stan Hoffman WA Department of Health (DOH), Watershed Protection Program
Coordinator
Nathan McReynolds WA Department of Natural Resources, Hood Canal District Manager
Nick Wofford
Will Maupin
Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Bremerton water customer/ratepayer
Lindsay Wourms( for
Jessica Bryant WDFW)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Assistant
Regional Habitat Program Manager
Brent Keller Forester, Mason Bruce and Girard
Wendy Wente Project Manager, Mason Bruce and Girard
Ryan Orth Committee Facilitator, EnviroIssues
Alex Cole Facilitation Support, EnviroIssues
Action Items:
Task Lead
Share summary and materials from Meeting #5 Sean
Share letter acknowledging agreement with ULMP update Sean
Summary
The Bremerton Utility Land Management Plan Community Advisory Committee met on May 6, 2025
to provide additional insights and feedback on the draft update of the utility land management plan.
The project team, led by Sean Walsh at the City of Bremerton, and supported by the consultant team,
provided updates on the draft Utility Land Management Plan, distributed in advance of the meeting
for advisory committee member review.
Utility and Land Management
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5 Summary
134
The plan covers approximately 8,000 acres of utility land, some within the Union River watershed. It
is an update of the 1996 plan and includes special topic memos. The plan addresses existing
conditions, watershed and forest resource assessments, harvest planning, sustainable harvest
practices, reforestation, adaptive management, a forestry capital improvement plan (including water
rate analysis), and a special development management plan.
Key goals for the updated plan:
• Maintain unflltered water source status
• Generate revenue in the context of water source protection
• Assist with funding city actions on the land
Timeline for plan update:
• Draft plan review with AC (May 2025)
• City Council study session(June 2025)
• Public comment period(June-July 2025)
• Final updated plan discussion with City Council (targeting July)
• Final plan presentation to City Council for approval (targeting August)
Key discussion topics from previous meetings:
• Water rates
• Maintaining unflltered water status
• Security challenges
• Potential impacts of a proposed trail
• Sustainable harvest and adaptive management practices
• Carbon considerations
• Maintaining tribal access
Key Discussion Topics from This Meeting:
• Water service to adjacent property owners: Not all adjacent property owners are on
Bremerton water service; the NE portion of the project area is within Bremerton City limits
and are on Bremerton water, but there are adjacent areas that are outside of city limits. For
example, most of McKenna Falls RD are on their own wells or get water from a stream above
their homes.
o Suggested by AC member: Bremerton water customers would be interested in
maintaining unflltered status to keep their costs down. They should know that what
goes on in the watershed affects their water rates.
o Connecting with HOAs in these areas is a potential solution to this.
• April 2 letter from Department of Health (DOH) quantifying concerns for Jarstad - Kitsap
Lake Trail: Every year there is a watershed inspection that is required by DOH for unflltered
systems. This gives DOH an opportunity to interact with the City of Bremerton and the water
system to have a conversation about how things are going in the watershed. This letter
outlines that inspection, what it entailed, and its flndings. The main concern highlighted by
DOH is that this proposed trail would reduce buffers rather than increase them. Separately,
135
and unrelated to the scope of this plan, the letter also addresses the risk of invasive algae
blooms. This letter will be included in the plan documentation.
• Risks associated with loss of unfiltered status: From the plan: “The greatest potential cost
is related to the potential loss of the unflltered status of the drinking water supply..” DOH
pointed out that some of the measures for maintaining unflltered status are subjective or
nuanced and DOH can work with the City to flnd solutions. However, there are some hard
limits in the WAC for factors like turbidity and fecal coliform, and if those thresholds are
crossed then they will have to take away the unflltered status.
o Standards DOH uses to measure success at managing a watershed are outlined here:
WAC 246-290-690:
o The City of Bremerton is working on getting an estimated cost for installing a flltration
system, based on examples from the City of Portland, both for construction and
operations, and what the subsequent rate impacts would be. These estimates will be
included in the plan.
• Recommendations for timber rotation/sustainable harvest: The plan is meant to present
information with a range of different possible scenarios. But given market and needs, ideally a
50-year rotation would be best for public lands. Recommendations are highly dependent on
what the mills in the region will purchase.
o Suggested by AC member: You never know what the market is going to be like in the
future and since it is a watershed, and you have the fiexibility for older timber, it would
be a good idea to keep some of that in the mix.
Next steps
The project team thanked members for the discussion and described the prospective schedule for
completion of the project. Members were asked to complete review of the plan, provide any flnal
comments, and endorse the draft; instructions will follow by email. The draft plan and letter of
endorsement will go to the City Council for review at Study Session on June 11th, 2025.
136
Mayor Greg Wheeler
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th St., Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Subject: Bremerton Utility Land Management Plan Update-Advisory Committee Recommendations
Dear Mayor Wheeler,
The Utility Land Management Plan Advisory Committee (ULMPAC) was established to review
and provide recommendations on the Utility Land Management Plan (ULMP) Update. ULMPAC
included a diverse group of governments and stakeholders—representatives from tribal
government, state and county regulatory agencies, adjacent forest landowners, and two utility
ratepayer representatives—who collaborated with Water Utility staff and the consultant team.
Between January 2024, and May 2025, the committee met five times and participated in a field
tour of the Watershed and Utility Lands. These meetings involved reviewing draft plan sections,
evaluating summaries of best available science, and discussing key policy issues, including
proposed updates to the existing plan, supporting scientific data, and potential impacts to the
Water Utility.
Based on its review, ULMPAC finds the plan update to be fair, scientifically grounded, and
aligned with the following goals:
1.Union River Reservoir and McKenna Falls Intake Subbasin –
Manage to maintain the “unfiltered” water source status while supporting forest health.
2.Other Utility Lands –
Actively and adaptively manage to sustainably protect water resources and maintain forest
resilience, while also generating revenue to reduce ratepayer costs.
Additionally, ULMPAC recommends the City consider an alternative alignment for the proposed
Kitsap Lake to Jarstad Park Trail. Based on the information and professional insights shared
during committee meetings, ULMPAC is concerned that the current proposed trail alignment
may pose an unnecessary risk to the City’s unfiltered water source status.
Accordingly, ULMPAC recommends the City adopt the 2025 Utility Land Management Plan by
resolution.
Sincerely,
Bremerton Water Utility Land Management Plan Advisory Committee*
137
Debbie Kay
Suquamish Tribe
Forest Ecologist
Will Maupin
Bremerton Resident
Water Ratepayer
Nick Wofford
Bremerton Resident
Water Ratepayer
Nathan McReynolds
Hood Canal District Manager
WA Department of Natural Resources
Rudy Baum
Kitsap Public Health
Program Coordinator for Healthy Environments
Mark Mauren
CEO Ueland Tree Farm
Stan Hoffman
Washington Department of Health
Watershed Protection Program Coordinator
Jessica Bryant
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional Land Use Planner Region 6
*Advisory Committee signatures affirmed by email
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Utility Lands Management Plan | September 2025
APPENDIX E
Public Comments and Responses
145
Public comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Plan (June - July 2025)
Comment
Number Public Comment City Responses
1 Looks complicated Comment noted
2 I think there needs to be a central part of the plan to actually prepare for climate change to our city and the needs that
will bring. The plan should address care for the environment to repair past carbon emissions by encouraging population
growth.
The City has developed a wildfire plan, practices adaptive management, and keeps climate change
research at the forefront of decisionmaking.
3
For the purposes of recreation and increasing public connectivity, I propose removing the two gates on GM-5 between
the border of Green Mountain State Forest and the Bremerton Watershed, and adding a gate at the fork in the road
immediately south of the border. This would allow the public to go between Green Mountain State Forest and Ueland
Tree Farm without needing to navigate the "UTF/GMSF connector", which is not well designed, is often overgrown and/or
eroded, and is not maintained. The section of road in question is less than half of a mile. The potential impact to the
watershed would be incredibly small, but would have a great benefit for recreation users of both Ueland Tree Farm and
Green Mountain State Forest.
Controlled access allows the untility to maintain security which in turn supports unfiltered status. This
would reduce security.
4 As a Bremerton citizen and utility customer, I think we should have recreational access to this land. Security feels
unnecessarily tight.
The City is maintaining unfiltered status by controlling access. These lands are owned by the utility and not
seen as a recreational resource for the public . See trail special topic.
5 I would like to see efforts to move forward a multimodal pathway from the area of Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake to make
access to the city of Bremerton safer for those commuting as pedestrians, in wheelchairs, or by bicycle. The Gorst
traffic bottleneck is well known and this would be a real solution to improve safety and provide an alternative to the
congestion created by dependence on automobiles.Please see the special topic on the proposed trail. This plan evaluated the security impacts of the proposal.
6 You list clear cutting as the only option. Sustainable forests are not clear cut. This is written as if trees are an
agricultural product only.
Different harvest options are covered in special topic memo and within the Plan. These options include
multiple harvest practices in addition to clearcutting.
7
I'm supportive of keeping our #1 goal of the watershed lands as protecting our water resources, and it's perfectly
reasonable to conduct sustainable forestry to help lower our utility rates, but it's notable that it appears that we're not
striving for FSC certification of our management practices. Is that true? I searched the draft plan for any mention of
certifications. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources manages its abutting State Forestlands to FSC
standards because anything below that is out of line with the values of a good majority of people in the proposed forest
practices do not meet FSC standards, that is likely out of line with the values of most Bremertonians. https://fsc.org/en
South Puget Sound management area our Kitsap County DNR forests are a part of. People want both enhanced
practices benefiting our local forest habitat and economic returns. We can still clearcut and make money off our forests
via FSC-certified logging. If our proposed practices are better or equal to FSC standards for habitat management, then
it's easy to get that certification and that will be in line with the values of Bremerton ratepayers. It will also give
Bremertonians something to be proud of and serve as an educational tool. If our
Thank you for your interest in the Utility Land Management Plan Update. The City has previously
explored certification through FSC and/or SFI. Similar to carbon credits, certification involves
extensive data collection, monitoring, and recordkeeping, which carry both financial costs and
time commitments for the Forestry Division, which is already managing a significant workload.
That said, forest certification could be further considered during the development of the Forest
Management Plan, which will provide a more in-depth analysis of harvest planning based on
recommendations from the Utility Land Management Plan. The forest inventory data collected will
serve as a strong foundation for this effort. A preliminary review of the FSC Pacific Coast Forest
Management Standards suggests that our current practices already align closely with many of the
requirements, indicating that achieving FSC certification would likely be feasible.
8 In neither presentation I did not see how the different harvest levels proposed in the 4/9/25 presentation would impact
water quality. It stands to reason that differing rates of tree removal and soil exposure would have some impact on
filtration and runoff. Has this link between the rates of harvest and water quality been investigated and what are the
findings?
The City’s watershed and utility lands are managed with the principal goal to protect water
quality, and as such we will not consider any harvest level that would diminish water quality.
146
9
I'm not clear on what agency has the say so in determining if the water quality would continue to meet the standards for
no filtration plant needed to having to build one. A mention was made in the 4/9/25 presentation that the Department
of Health has that authority but it was not made clear if that is the only agency. Who has this authority and will they be
consulted regarding the different levels of proposed harvest?
There are two agencies that administer and enforce public drinking water system requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops rules to implement federal regulation and
directives. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is designated by EPA as the
primacy agency to administer and enforce those federal rules on EPA’s behalf in Washington
State. DOH, also, through the State Board of Health develops rules to implement State regulation
and directives (RCW 43.20.050). These Federal and State rules are incorporated in Washington
Administrative Code (WAC). As pertains to the Union River surface water supply’s unfiltered
status, DOH administers the EPA “filtration avoidance criteria” that must be met to remain
unfiltered. The Water Utility must meet all criteria listed in WAC 246-290-690 to remain unfiltered,
as well as all source water protection requirements (WAC 246-290-135) and watershed control
requirements (WAC 246-290-668). A representative of Department of Health sits on the Utility
Land Management Plan Update Advisory Committee and did not express any concerns regarding
the different levels of proposed harvest.
The Utility Land Management Plan Update will be brought before City Council for approval and
adoption. If and when adopted, this update will be used as guidelines for decision making
regarding the City’s Watershed and Utility Lands. I reiterate that the City’s watershed and utility
lands are managed with the principal goal to protect water quality, and as such we will not
consider any harvest level that would diminish water quality.
BMCs pertaining to the protection of water quality and protection of the Utility Lands to include
the Union River Watershed water supply:
BMC 5.02.210 PROHIBITED ACTS.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate the following:
(a) Tampering. It shall be unlawful for any person, unless duly authorized by the City, to disturb,
repair, interfere with, or damage any water source, water main, pipe, machinery, tools, meters,
hydrant, or any building, improvement, or other appurtenances belonging to, connected with, or
under the control of the City.
(b) Contamination. It shall be unlawful for any person to contaminate, bathe in, or fish in any
water system of the City.
.
.
.
(f) Trespass in Closed Watershed. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain on City
properties posted as restricted property and facility lands without authorization by the Mayor or
the Director. (Ord. 5376 §2 (in part), 2019: Ord. 5250 §1 (in part), 2014: Ord. 4454 §1 (in part),
1994; Ord. 4309 §2 (in part), 1991)
20.97.010 INTENT.
The intent of the watershed (WS) zone is to protect the Bremerton public water supply by
controlling activities and maintaining high water quality at the source, consistent with state and
federal regulations. It is further intended to maintain strict control of access to and activities
within the Union River drainage to allow the Union River water supply source to continue in its
unfiltered status. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005)
20.97.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted:
If there is a city code that addresses water issues for the Union River Reservoir and/or water quality in general I'd like to
see that. Could you please send me that reference?
10
147
(a) Educational and resource activities compatible with public water supply;
(b) Forest and wildlife management activities, and forest practices;
(c) Groundwater development and aquifer protection;
(d) Hydropower activities and facilities;
(e) Location of wireless communications facilities per BMC 20.46.140;
(f) Public utilities functions and activities related to the monitoring and distribution of potable
water. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005)
20.97.030 ACCESSORY USES.
The following accessory uses may be permitted:
(a) Caretaker’s residence or gate guard associated with an outright permitted use;
(b) Nonresidential structures necessary for the execution of an outright permitted use;
(c) Temporary quarters associated with an outright permitted use. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part),
2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005)
20.97.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Development shall be in accordance with the following standards:
(a) All developments shall minimize the amount of impervious surface to that necessary to
execute a permitted use;
(b) Sustainable development and best environmental management practices shall be employed
to minimize environmental impacts such as:
(1) Low impact stormwater management and natural drainage;
(2) Identification and preservation of significant trees;
(3) Minimization of impervious surfaces. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A)
(part), 2005)
20.97.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.48 BMC, except required parking may be reduced
or waived by the Director in the watershed (WS) zone in order to reduce impervious surface area.
(Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005)
20.97.090 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
Landscaping shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.50 BMC, except landscaping requirements
may be modified or reduced if it can be demonstrated that such modifications or reductions
preserve existing or native vegetation. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A)
(part), 2005)
If there is a city code that addresses water issues for the Union River Reservoir and/or water quality in general I'd like to see that. Could you please send me that reference? 10
148
20.97.100 SIGN STANDARDS.
Signage shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.52 BMC. (Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord.
4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005)
If there is a city code that addresses water issues for the Union River Reservoir and/or water quality in general I'd like to see that. Could you please send me that reference? 10
149
Final Utility Land Management Plan Review
1
Project Background
2
•City owns and manages 8,000 acres of Utility land, of which approximately
3,000 acres are the Union River Watershed.
•In 1986 the City created a Utility Land Management Plan (ULMP) to provide
guidance on the management of these lands and to demonstrate intent
and ability to protect drinking water sources.
•The purpose of this project is to update the ULMP with current best
scientific based practices as it has not been updated since 1996.
•Update includes Special Topic Memos, stand-alone summary memorandum
of findings and recommendations on specific issues facing the Water Utility
land management.
Where Are We in the Project
Schedule?
3
•December 2024: AC Meeting #4 on Special Topics
•April 2025: City Council Study Session #2 on Special Topics
•May 2025: AC #5 on Draft Updated Plan
•June 2025: City Council Study Session #3 Review Draft Plan
with Release for Public Comment
•August 2025: Discuss Final Updated Plan with City Council
•October/Nov 2025(Today): Final Updated Plan Presented
to City Council
Plan Overview: What does it include?
4
•Land Management Goals
•Maintain unfiltered water source status
•Generate revenue in context of water source
protection and forest health
•Existing Conditions
•Property Description, Water Uses, Infrastructure
•Watershed Assessment
•Wildlife, Riparian Areas
•Forest Resources Assessment
•Forest Inventory, Road System, Harvest Planning
Plan Overview: What does it include?
5
•Sustainable Harvest Level
•Harvest Levels
•McKenna Falls Subbasin
•Other Utility Lands
•Implementation Plan
•Harvest Methods, Reforestation,
Adaptive Management
•Forestry Capital Improvement Plan
•Water Rate Analysis
•Roads, Bridges, Buildings
•Special Topics
Special Topics
6
1.Security
2.Adjacent land use and potential conflicts
3.Utility impacts from the proposed Jarstad Park
to Kitsap Lake Trail
4.Sustainable timber harvest alternatives and
associated revenue
5.Water rate impacts of Timber Harvest Revenue
6.Water rate impacts of Filtration Plant (added)
7.Potential revenue generation via carbon credits
8.20-yr forestry asset capital improvement plan
9.Staffing level evaluation
Topics that Generated Discussion at AC
Meetings
7
1.Water rates
2.Maintaining unfiltered status
3.Security challenges
4.Potential impacts of the proposed Jarstad
Park to Kitsap Lake trail on Utility land
management
5.Sustainable harvest and adaptive
management practices
6.Carbon credit opportunities
7.Maintaining Tribal access
Special Topic Update: Water Rate
Impacts
8
Summary of Monthly Bill Impacts for Timber Harvest Alternatives
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
No Harvest 33.34$ 34.76$ 36.23$ 37.77$ 39.38$ 41.05$ 42.80$ 44.62$ 46.51$ 48.49$ 50.55$
Current Harvest 33.34$ 34.57$ 35.85$ 37.18$ 38.55$ 39.98$ 41.46$ 42.99$ 44.59$ 46.24$ 47.95$
50-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.31$ 35.30$ 36.33$ 37.38$ 38.46$ 39.58$ 40.73$ 41.91$ 43.12$ 44.37$
60-Yr Rotation 33.34$ 34.37$ 35.44$ 36.54$ 37.67$ 38.84$ 40.04$ 41.28$ 42.56$ 43.88$ 45.24$
Projected
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Timber Harvest Alternatives
Cumulative Rate Increases
No Harvest Current Harvest 50 Year Rotation 60 Year Rotation
Special Topic Update: Water Filtration Plant(WFP)
Impacts
9
•Residential rate impacts resulting from construction
and O&M of a Filtration Plant were quantified based
on concerns related to the proposed Jarstad/Kitsap
Lake trail
•Analysis considered conventional filtration (low end
costs) and membrane filtration (high end costs)
•Assumes current timber harvest levels and no
additional capital costs
•Increase estimates are very high:
•Low increase is 2.17X current rates
•High increase is 6.32X current rates
Current
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Current Harvest 33.34$ 34.57$ 35.85$ 37.18$ 38.55$ 39.98$ 41.46$ 42.99$ 44.59$ 46.24$ 47.95$
WFP -Low Cost 33.34$ 40.01$ 44.81$ 50.19$ 56.21$ 60.14$ 64.35$ 66.28$ 68.27$ 70.32$ 72.43$
WFP - High Cost 33.34$ 59.18$ 88.77$ 133.15$ 153.12$ 176.09$ 202.51$ 204.53$ 206.58$ 208.64$ 210.73$
Projected
Security
10
•Confidential topic but included an
assessment of current security
infrastructure and procedures
•Presented recommendations to
improve security
Adjacent Land Use and Potential
Conflicts
11
•Reviewed and identified many different
adjacent land uses: Residential, Industrial tree
farm, Gov lands, Utilities, Tribes
•Watershed management will require ongoing
collaboration with adjacent landowners
•Acquire adjacent lands, targeting those in the
Union River Drainage and those within
Wellhead areas
Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake Trail
12
Reviewed potential impacts on security, unfiltered
surface water status, current operations, and staffing.
Issues identified included:
•Conflicting Use
•Security
•Threat to Unfiltered Source Water Status
identified by State DOH
•Comprehensive Planning
Consistency/Environmental Considerations
•Cost
Costs to address security concerns include but are not
limited to:
•Increased staff for enhanced security
•Improved infrastructure related to security
•Enhanced Security and Monitoring
•Example cost: fencing = $650k along one side
Sustainable Timber Harvest Alternatives
and Adaptive Management
13
Sustainable Alternative Annual Volume
(MBF)
Annual Estimated
Net Revenue
No Harvest 0 $ 0
Current Program 1,100 $ 511,500
50yr Rotation
Limited Union Basin Harvest
2,750 $ 1,278,750
60yr Rotation
Limited Union Basin Harvest
2,350 $ 1,092,750
Potential Revenue Generation via Carbon
Credits
14
•Generate revenue by selling carbon credits
•Would follow improved forest management
protocol
•Bremerton has small land base for costs of
credits:
•Requires Ongoing Monitoring and
Reporting
•Potential for additional carbon storage is
lower
Maintaining Tribal Access
15
•Covered in Security Processes and Procedures
Special Topic
•Suquamish Tribe would like to formalize
access to harvest western redcedar bark and
other forest products
•City is reviewing process and documentation
needs to formalize an agreement
Public Comments and Responses
16
•Public comments are provided in Appendix E
of Plan
•Primarily focused on:
•recreational access
•connectivity
•water quality
•proposed forest management activities
•Possible Forest Certification
Additional Comments and Discussion
17
Published for
October 22
Study Session
Item A1
Public Comments
From: Paul Dutky <pdutky@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:10 PM
To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler
<Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Presentation re Land Mgt Plan / J to K trail given to PW Committee
Hello Council members,
We're all interested in the security of the watershed. Approval of the Mason
Bruce & Girard Land Management Plan should hinge on the accuracy of the data
submitted. Considerable misinformation is presented that provides inaccurate
perspectives of existing and future risks to the watershed. The same parameters
used to assess risks posed by the J to K trail were not used to demonstrate
actual and future risks to the watershed elsewhere.
I gave the presentation in the link below to the Public Works Committee on
August 5th, 2025. This is a very large file due to several video segments, The only
way I know to send it to you is to ask you to download the file from my Dropbox
account. If this is not feasible, staff should have a copy of the
presentation. Please review it prior to any Council discussion on the Land
Management Plan.
https://www.dropbox.com/t/PAX2gGCpk5IiOuQB
Appendix B should be deleted (not approved) due to numerous inaccuracies and
the absence of a balanced perspective that could guide the City to protect
the watershed from existing risks and the large development planned for West
Ridge Properties that will be much closer to the Watershed than the J to K trail..
Please call me if you need additional clarity of the information provided please:
360-710-8189.
Paul Dutky
Comments Regarding Bremerton's Land Management Plan
(Appendix B - Risk assessment for a Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake (J to K) Trail)
by Paul Dutky July 23, 2025
Bremerton’s Wheeler administration tasked the firm of Mason, Bruce and Girard
with providing a risk assessment for the proposed J To K trail as part its updated
Land Management Plan. The draft plan points out that the favorable J to K Trail
2016 feasibility study lacked in-depth risk, cost, and maintenance assessments.
The overarching tone of the document considers the trail a tipping point that
could force city residents to pay for an expensive water filtration plant.
Consider, however, that Bremerton, under Mayor Lent, applied for an RCO grant
in 2014 to create a Jarstad Park trail that would circle both Heins and Alexander
Lakes. It did not receive grant funding, but that proposed trail was entirely in
Bremerton Utility Lands and was supported by the well-respected watershed
manager at that time, Kathleen Cahall. The RCO grant application contained a
strong letter of support from Mark Mauren, the property manager of Ueland Tree
Farm (UTF).
In 2015 and 2016, Bremerton and Kitsap County jointly funded a J to K
feasibility study. Mark Mauren helped form the working group that helped
choose the route. There was enthusiastic public support for the draft trail plan at
the single public meeting held.
The fact that the County, the City of Bremerton, and UTF supported the J to K
trail in 2016 is an indication that it does not constitute a substantial risk to
Bremerton’s unfiltered water supply.
The reason the trail did not move forward in 2016 was because UTF publicly
withdrew its support the same afternoon the County approved its “South Access
Road” for quarrying rock across the valley south of Kitsap Lake. The plan for
UTF’s road, years in the making, made no accommodation for, or mention of, a
J to K trail. There was no celebration or public announcement when the
completed and highly favorable feasibility study was released because UTF had
terminated its support several weeks before.
The weakness in the Land Management Plan’s stated concerns regarding a
future J to K trail is its lack of perspective. There may be risk, but that risk may
be insignificant compared to existing and other future threats to the watershed.
On the following pages I will state my opinion regarding those concerns, and
follow with supporting evidence.
The J to K trail poses no threat to the McKenna Falls Intake subbasin, Bremerton’s primary
unfiltered Union River water supply. The graphic below shows that between the J to K trail and the
watershed (feint green line) are extremely steep slopes that extend for 1.6 miles to the nearest edge of the
City’s watershed. I’ve added blue lines and text to the graphic below to emphasize the location of
extreme slopes and show the location of the J to K trail.
Extreme slope Greater than 70%
Mod./High slope
J to K trail.
40%- 70%
Upper Union River
watershed
1
The graphic below is easier to understand. Bremerton’s watershed is “guarded” by several visual and
geological features. No Trespassing signs would suffice to keep visitors on the J to K trail, as they are used
now to protect the entire perimeter of the Utility Lands,. The City’s consultants recommend a $650,000, 8-
foot tall, cyclone fence on each side of the trail - it is not needed, and not used elsewhere where trespassing
risks are much much higher.
The trail is surrounded by private property as it moves south of Kitsap Lake on County land. Where the trail
enters Bremerton’s Utility Lands a person deviating westward off the trail would encounter a lake or creek, a
railroad track, and very steep forested slopes. Gravel roads in this area do not lead directly into the
watershed.
Bremerton’s
Watershed The dark brown
elevation contour
lines are 100 feet
apart. The blurred
dark shading indicates
steep terrain.
The J to K trail is in the northeast corner of the Gorst Creek
watershed, as shown below, at least 2 miles away from the Union
River reservoir.
Union River Watershed
above Casad Dam
The graphic below is an overview of the virtual “helicopter” video (using Google Earth) that
follows. It will give you a valuable perspective of the barriers to entering the City watershed.
We will “fly” down to Heins Lake, and then westward along the green line to the Union River
Reservoir. From there we will fly south and descend to reveal the ridgeline that would have to
be traversed to enter the watershed. The video ends with a climb to a high altitude to give a
visual perspective of how the J to K rail relates to other landmarks and jurisdictional boundaries.
J to K trail
J to K
trail
Click on the Google Earth video below.
Legend
Utility Land Boundary
City watershed above Casad dam
J to K trail
Route of our virtual flight to the watershed
Video needs to be
redone to
conform to
legend
(Early July 2025)
Gold Mt. Trailhead
Leber Lane
Trailhead
The watershed’s most vulnerable access points are at its north boundary with State DNR lands.
IF a person wanted to enter the watershed, it is much much easier to do via less steep existing roads on DNR property north of
the watershed. Cyclists, runners and hikers who want to travel between Green Mountain and publicly accessible trails in UTF
will pass near, or into, the watershed. Most take a challenging trail to bypass the watershed, but the easiest way is to pass
through the Watershed for two hundred yards on relatively flat ground. A Ride With GPS “heat map” in July shows there is
significant activity between Leber Lane and Green Mountain over only 7 days. The trails/roads with red coloration show use.
The darker the line, the more use. Two blue arrows show gated roads that cross into the watershed. No activity is shown here
(no red color), but a photograph of one of these gates (on the following page) leads one to wonder.
1. June 24, 2025. The bike shown is on DNR property, the gate
separates it from the Bremerton Watershed. The “No Trespassing” sign,
present on all Utility Land gates, is missing. It would be relatively easy
to lift a bike over the gate, but you don’t have to . . .
1
2 2. . . . because a trail has
been cleared around the gate.
3
3. You can walk into the
watershed.
Easy access to Utility Lands from DNR trails north of the watershed
I looked online to see if I could find
bike routes around Green Mountain and
found this listing, “GM-5”, dated
March 9, 2021:
Gold
Mountain
Trailhead
Leber Lane
Trailhead
Green Mountain Recreation Area
Watershed boundary: red line
Union River Reservoir
GM 5 Rd
Clicking on the “GM 5” entry,
I got this trail map, which
clearly shows routes next to
and through the watershed.
I’ve superimposed the
watershed boundary and added
labels in red for clarity.
A second entry, dated
Nov 19, 2021, is below:
Green Mt.
Summit
Gold Mt.trailhead
Newberry Hill Heritage Park
(Kitsap County Parks)
City of Bremerton
Watershed
State
DNR
Leber Lane
trailhead
The State and County could significantly increase
Bremerton’s watershed security by providing an
alternative route between the Green Mt. Recreation
area and UTF. Such a route is along the abandoned Lost
River Rd (black line). It would be 500 feet below, and ½
mile distant from the watershed’s north boundary. It
would connect both Newberry Hill Heritage Park and
Green Mt. to the Leber Lane trailhead. This was Mark
Mauren’s expanded vision for his trail network when he
graciously allowed the public access to trails in the north
part of the UTF.
2 Fire is the single greatest risk to Bremerton’s unfiltered water supply, and the fire risk from a
J to K trail is insignificant compared to those posed by existing and future residential
development.
A significant fire within the Watershed could spell the end of Bremerton’s unfiltered water source.
Climate change is slowly making that risk greater as the planet heats and forests dry out. Fires
spread and are intensified by wind, and the prevailing winds in the Bremerton area are mostly from
the southwest, and in the summer from the north. The J to K trail would be situated almost two
miles east of the watershed, making any fire starting there less of a risk than a fire originating in
populated areas ½ mile south and downslope from the watershed. Trail users will be cyclists,
runners, and families walking - these folks will not be building fires - something commonly
associated with residential backyards, or people tossing lit cigarette butts from their car - and Old
Belfair Highway is only 0.8 miles south of the McKenna Falls Intake facility.
The overarching risk to the Bremerton Watershed is spelled out clearly in the Mason, Bruce and
Girard document: Humans are living closer and closer to what used to be a relatively protected
remote watershed. The hundreds of homes in the Soundview Estates development abuts Utility
Land and is declared a concern. The Bremerton population is expected to grow rapidly in the next
20 to 30 years. Within that time frame Craig Ueland intends to build residential housing on his
property inside the Bremerton City limits southwest of the Leber Lane Trailhead. That area is ten
times the size of Sound View Estates and much closer to the watershed.
These issues, not the J to K trail, are the tipping point that will eventually require Bremerton to filter
its water.
Residential developments pose recharge risks, not J to K trail The Land Management document contains this
language: “Those areas of the watershed that were zoned for maximum protection encompass nearly the entire proposed
trail route through the Utility Lands”. The graphic below is part of the Land Management document but did not include
the location of the J to K trail. Adding it to the graphic (blue line) reveals it passes through no area of "Highest
Protection”. “Protection” indicates aquifer recharge is good and should be preserved.
Heins Lake
3
The risk of impairing recharge in the north Gorst Creek drainage can be put in perspective by looking at
three scenarios. The image below shows dense clusters of single family dwellings situated inside the
Anderson Creek watershed - where Bremerton has well heads providing drinking water. The red line
defines Bremerton Utility Lands.
Each housing cluster has a deep retention
pond (red arrows) that collects storm water
and holds it for slow release, so it soaks
into the aquifer and does not rush past it
into the Sound during heavy rainfall. Many
of these ponds allow sedimentation and
removal of toxic debris and pollutants
washed from lawns and streets. This is
how aquifers are protected from human
development.
The rural housing community at left is
within the lower Union River watershed.
Retention ponds are not needed, since the
area of impervious surfaces (houses,
driveways, roads) is small relative to the
surrounding open land.
At right is a satellite view of forested Utility
lands that would surround a future J to K trail
(yellow line). There are almost 1000 acres of
land in the image shown. There are no
impervious surfaces. A paved J to K trail would
have no parking lots, homes or network of
intersecting streets. Calling this trail a
“development” is a stretch. Water falling on this
single paved path would roll to the side of the
road and be absorbed into the ground. The risk
to this aquifer by a single paved J to K trail is
negligible.
intersecting
A paved J to K trail will have little or no
affect on Gorst Creek recharge.
A J to K trail would not interfere with maintenance of utilities or tribal fisheries.
Bremerton’s consultants point out there are cell towers, power transmission infrastructure, gas lines and water mains that
traverse Utility Lands where the J to K trail would be located. The document infers the presence of trail users would
interfere with maintenance activities and vegetation management.
A public trail would require utility workers to interface and co-exist with recreational trail users. Outside of Bremerton’s
Utility Lands, this cooperative interaction is the norm, however, it would change the working environment in the valley
between Kitsap Lake and Jarstad Park. Utility workers are adept at working among the public to repair downed power
lines, plumbing issues, and flushing water and sewer lines in populated spaces.
The document states: “The (water) main is flushed and cleaned every year (pigging) with a pig port located on the
proposed pathway between Alexander and Heins Lakes.” I believe the consultant is wrong about the location of the trail
in relation to this water main. The trail alignment was moved east of and above the dirt road connecting Alexander and
Heins Lakes - so interference with maintenance here is not an issue. Mark Mauren demanded this change in routing due
to his concerns that a trail passing near both lakes (where the existing road is) would result in the scenic lakes becoming
an attractive nuisance, and UTF owns the smaller of the two lakes. Repositioning the trail away from the existing road
significantly delayed completion of the feasibility study.
The document states: “Lastly, the south end of the proposed trail bisects the Suquamish Tribe Fisheries operation.” This
is not the case. The J to K trail will enter Jarstad Park, its termination, at a distance from Gorst Creek. The public’s use of
the park has never been seen as interfering with Tribal Fisheries operations.
4
An 8-foot tall cyclone fence is not needed on each side of the J to K trail to prevent humans from
departing the trail and entering the Utility Lands. The draft Land management Plan recommends
such a fence. It would be very expensive, and the consultants state the fence they recommend would
interfere with terrestrial animal movements. The problem with this logic is that 8-foot cyclone fences
are not employed anywhere else on the perimeter of the Utility Lands (that I am aware of). They are
not used to keep people out of Utility Lands where it borders Soundview Estates, and not at gates
across roads entering the watershed. No trespassing signs on gates have served the purpose of
separating people from the watershed reasonably well until recently. The location of the J to K Trail
poses almost no risk to the watershed proper and its unfiltered water supply, so no 8-foot cyclone fence
is needed, and therefore terrestrial animal movements will not be impacted.
A balanced evaluation recommending specific security precautions along the J to K trail has not
occurred, and one is needed. The Land Management document side steps this issue by citing perceived
risks without explaining whether or not they are significant risks. The document implies that no further
consideration should be given to the concept of a J to K trail.
The next step in developing the J to K trail is to acknowledge the need for and benefits of the trail, as
well as its strong public support - then propose mitigating solutions that will facilitate its
implementation.
5
April 2, 2025 We understand the City is considering adding a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the
eastern part of the city-owned watershed control area. Although the proposed public access path is outside
the hydrologic boundary of the surface water source, we have significant concerns about reducing the
protective buffer that keeps people out of this valuable water supply. People, both well-meaning and not,
present a risk to water quality. The primary concern is human started fire. We are also concerned the
increased access may encourage people to attempt to access areas within the watershed and may make
future development ideas seem more acceptable. Our recommendation is to find an alternate alignment
for the proposed trail that does not pass through the watershed control area. If the City chooses to
construct the trail, you should carefully consider how you will mitigate the risks to the watershed.
While we understand there would be public benefit to providing a safe pedestrian path, please do not
undervalue the unfiltered status of this water supply when considering the accompanying risks.
6
Geography precludes an alternative trail alignment that does not pass through Bremerton Utility Lands.
This specific location allows the creation of a car free 3 mile shared use path, an amenity that exists
nowhere else in Kitsap. It would safely connect Bremerton’s Kitsap Lake Park to Bremerton’s Otto Jarstad
park (both have restrooms and parking), South Kitsap to Central Kitsap, and Bremerton to Belfair for non-
motorized users. It would create an emergency access corridor from the Bremerton Airport to PSNS and
Central Kitsap in event of a geologic or man-made catastrophe.
The Department of Health’s letter regarding the J to K trail (a copy is in the Land Management document) does not preclude moving forward with planning and implementation of the trail.
The part of the letter pertaining to the J to K Trail is shown below.
Bremerton’s consultants state that anything “viewed by regulatory agencies as a negative change in
security posture and a reduction in protection of the unfiltered source (See Attached Department of Health
Letter). . . . could result in the City’s loss of unfiltered status and a significant cost to drinking water
ratepayers”.
Bremerton has an opportunity to build the J to K trail and improve their security posture with respect to
the watershed and its unfiltered water supply. A positive change in security posture would occur if
Bremerton rezoned their West Ridge property to prevent construction of a new large housing
development close to the watershed, an action that would simultaneously minimize urban sprawl. There
is ample opportunity to improve security at the watershed’s northern boundary and simultaneously
improve recreational opportunities.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 22, 2025
Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal
Code Section 2.05.020 entitled “Appointment
and Confirmation of Department Directors”
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 5, 2025
Department: Human Resources
Presenter: Charlotte Nelson
Phone: (360) 473-5926
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance updates the provision of Section 2.05.020 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled “Appointment and Confirmation of Department Directors.” The positions of
Fire Chief and Chief of Police were exempted from the City’s Civil Service System by Ordinance
5190. This ordinance amends BMC 2.05.020 to accurately reflect that change.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. _____ 2) Ordinance No. 5190.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. _______ to amend Section 2.05.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled “Appointment and Confirmation of Department Directors.”
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
A2
Page 1 of 2 BMC 2.05.020
Appointment and Confirmation
of Department Directors
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 2.05.020 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Appointment and
Confirmation of Department Directors.”
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Bremerton Municipal Code to
reflect that the positions of Fire Chief and Chief of Police were exempted from the City’s Civil
Service System by Ordinance 5190, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.05.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Appointment and Confirmation of Department Directors” is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.05.020 APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF DEPARTMENT
DIRECTORS.
(a) Mayoral appointments of department directors shall be subject to confirmation by
the City Council. Prior to an appointment or a provisional appointment to a newly created
department director’s position or prior to confirmation of an appointment to a vacancy of
department director’s position, a job description for the position as well as the anticipated
employment contract, if any, shall be submitted to the City Council for review and approval. The
appointment and confirmation shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions as approved by the
City Council. The Mayor may make provisional appointments to fill the vacancy of a department
director. No provisional appointment(s) to a non-civil service department director’s position shall
extend beyond one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of original appointment without the
consent of the City Council. Provisional appointments to a civil service department director’s
position shall be made pursuant to civil service rules. Upon the provisional appointment to a
vacancy, the Administration shall notify City Council of such appointment.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
Page 2 of 2 BMC 2.05.020
Appointment and Confirmation
of Department Directors
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 20___.
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 20___.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ _________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 20__.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 20__.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
Page 1 of 2 BMC 2.05.020
Appointment and Confirmation
of Department Directors
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 2.05.020 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Appointment and
Confirmation of Department Directors.”
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Bremerton Municipal Code to
reflect that the positions of Fire Chief and Chief of Police were exempted from the City’s Civil
Service System by Ordinance 5190, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.05.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Appointment and Confirmation of Department Directors” is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.05.020 APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF DEPARTMENT
DIRECTORS.
(a) Mayoral appointments of department directors shall be subject to confirmation by
the City Council. Prior to an appointment or a provisional appointment to a newly created
department director’s position or prior to confirmation of an appointment to a vacancy of
department director’s position, a job description for the position as well as the anticipated
employment contract, if any, shall be submitted to the City Council for review and approval. The
appointment and confirmation shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions as approved by the
City Council. The Mayor may make provisional appointments to fill the vacancy of a department
director. No provisional appointment(s) to a non-civil service department director’s position shall
extend beyond one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of original appointment without the
consent of the City Council. Upon the provisional appointment to a vacancy, the Administration
shall notify City Council of such appointment.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 20___.
Page 2 of 2 BMC 2.05.020
Appointment and Confirmation
of Department Directors
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 20___.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ _________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 20__.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 20__.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 22, 2205
Public Works Agreement with Long Building
Technologies, Inc. for Installation of the
Emergency Mass Communication System
at the Puget Sound Navy Museum
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 5, 2025
Department: PW&U
Presenter: Matt Donleycott
Phone: (360) 473-2316
SUMMARY: This project utilizes the WSIPC Contract #22-05 for the installation of an Emergency
Mass Communication System at the Puget Sound Navy Museum. The system includes 26 paging
speakers, three (3) call stations, and two (2) auto-lock doors to enhance safety and emergency
response capabilities at the facility.
Total Project Cost: $118,419.00 (plus applicable Washington State Sales Tax).
ATTACHMENTS:
1) PWA
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
This project is 100% funded by the U.S. Navy. The Navy has transferred the full amount of funds to
the City of Bremerton to cover all associated costs.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to accept the Public Works Agreement with Long Building Technologies, Inc. for the installation
of the Emergency Mass Communication System 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 04/19/2024
A3
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 Long Building Technologies, inc. (“Contractor”), whose
mailing address is 800 SW 34th Street, Ste. A, Renton, WA 98057 .
The parties agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following
services for the City: Supply and install equipment for the installation of a mass communications
system at the Puget Sound Navy Museum per design done by Wood Harbinger. See attached
Long Building Technologies, Inc. Proposal # LONG SVC101 which meets all pricing
requirements of the WSIPC Contract #22-05
2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within 60
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
$____118,419.00___, plus any applicable Washington State Sales Tax, for the work and services
contemplated in this agreement. The City shall pay the Contractor ninety percent (90%) of the
Contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the work by the City, and the remainder
upon fulfillment of the conditions listed below and throughout this agreement.
A. No Performance Bond. Because this contract including applicable sales
tax is $150,000 or less, and pursuant to Chapter 39.08 RCW, the
Contractor, in lieu of providing the City a performance bond, has elected
to have the City retain the final ten percent (10%) of the Contract amount
for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of final acceptance, or until
receipt of all necessary releases from the State Department of Revenue
and the State Department of Labor & Industries and until settlement of any
liens filed under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later.
B. Retainage. The City shall hold back a retainage in the amount of ten
percent (10%) of any and all payments made to contractor for a period of
thirty (30) days after the date of final acceptance, or until receipt of all
necessary releases from the State Department of Revenue and the State
Department of Labor & Industries and until settlement of any liens filed
under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later.
C. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold
payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work.
Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and
materials that do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
extra work and materials furnished without the City’s written approval. If
Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion
of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and
Contractor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by
the City. “Additional costs” shall mean all reasonable costs, including
legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum
Contract price specified above. The City further reserves its right to
deduct the cost to complete the Contract work, including any Additional
Costs, from any and all amounts due or to become due the Contractor.
D. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL
PAYMENT (EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL
PRECLUDE ALL CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND
PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS
UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS
MADE.
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall be at all times
acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Contractor shall
secure at its expense, and shall be responsible for all payments of income tax, social security,
state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll
deductions for the Contractor, officer, agents, employees and sub-contractors. The Contractor
shall also secure all applicable business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract
services, including all required licenses for Contractor's officers, agents, employees and sub-
contractors.
5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreement for good cause.
“Good cause” shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
A. The Contractor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of
properly skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the
Contract work.
B. The Contractor’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in
this agreement.
C. The Contractor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to sub-
contractors or for material or labor.
D. The Contractor’s persistent disregard of federal, state or local laws, rules
or regulations.
E. The Contractor’s filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt.
If the City terminates this agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any
further monies due under this agreement until the Contract work is completed.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
6. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall file a “Statement of Intent to Pay
Prevailing Wages” with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to
commencing the Contract work. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter
39.12 of the Revised Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate
provisions. Contractor will be required to pay Kitsap County Prevailing Wage Rates current on
the bid opening date. The Kitsap County rates are available at the Department of Labor and
Industries 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
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
access to any of the Contractor’s records needed for evaluating the
protest.
3. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this
section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid,
the City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable
adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest.
B. Contractor’s Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest,
the Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has
ordered.
C. Contractor’s Acceptance of Changes. The Contractor accepts all
requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate
acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A
change 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.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS
ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM
OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY.
Contractor must, in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected
with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is complete.
9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and
materials within one year from the date of the City’s acceptance of the Contract work. When
defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year 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. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this
agreement insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries
to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work by the Contractor, its agents, representative, employees, sub-consultants or sub-
contractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this agreement, the Contractor shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000
combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage;
and
B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis
with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
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.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of
the Contractor.
The City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be named as an
additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the
Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached
to the Certificate of Insurance.
The Contractor’s insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to
the limits of the insurer’s liability.
The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects
the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any
operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative
obligation upon Consultant to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by
certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6 th
Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or
substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed
to be a breach of this Agreement.
The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance
policies. 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 require and
confirm that each sub-contractor meets the minimum insurance requirements specified above.
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.
11. 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.
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
D. Work Performed at Contractor’s Risk. Contractor shall take all
precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and
subcontractors in the performance of this agreement. All work shall be done at Contractor’s own
risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other
articles used or held for use in connection with the work.
E. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict
performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein
conferred in one or more instances, shall not be constructed to be a waiver or relinquishment of
those terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect
F. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and
Contractor under any of the provisions of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be
available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court,
Kitsap County, Washington.
G. Attorney’s Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW 39.04.240, in
any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties’ performance of this agreement, each
party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs and attorney’s fees incurred in
defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the
City’s right to indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement.
H. Written Notice. All communications regarding this agreement shall be
sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless
otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event
three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be
deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated on this agreement.
I. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without
the written consent of the City shall be void.
J. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the
provisions of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized
representative of the City and Contractor.
K. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of
this agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity
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
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
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
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:
Public Works Agreement (short form)
Rev. 04/2023
345 6th Street, Suite 100
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
Homelessness Response & Property Management
Bremerton City Council Update
10/22/2025
Proactive Monitoring & Outreach
Continued efforts multiple times per week to rapidly
respond to repopulations and reports throughout the
city. Working with multiple city teams from Public Works,
Streets, Parks, Code Enforcement, Police Department,
Navigators, and Council Office Manager
Stakeholders within all applicable city departments.
Functioning optimally with high levels of communication,
coordination, and engagement.
Male living unhoused for many years
Sustained injury after falling from his encampment. We were
able to coordinate EMS and collaborated with many agencies -
including volunteers. Help with animal care during hospital stay
and placement in a respite bed in shelter. Now has ID, medical
insurance, and is working HIS plan.
Outreach & Engagement Outcomes
Individual experiencing homelessness, struggling with
substance abuse and some mental health challenges
Unfortunately ended up in jail. However, we were able to follow
up with him and work for discharge planning. He has reunited
with family including his infant daughter. He now has over 6
months clean and sober, living inside, and doing well to
navigate his plan in reaching his goals.
Outreach & Engagement Outcomes
Outreach & Engagement Outcomes
Unhoused individual with significant and lengthy history of
mental health and developmental/learning disabilities.
We were able to advocate and support through Kitsap County
Therapeutic court. He is on track to graduate in the next few
months. Living in recovery based housing and embracing all the
opportunities ahead of him.
Challenges
Salvation Army
Low-barrier Shelter
Safe Parking
SUD
Challenges
No "Magic Wand" or "Secret Potion" to solve these issues
Many struggles and many needs in the city and county
Clear communication of plans and expectations
Summary
Multiple individuals connected to shelters and/or
transitional housing
Other service providers continue to partner when
appropriate, working towards positive outcomes
Presented at the Citizens Academy along with
Navigators and BPD. Community was very receptive
and pleased this program exists in their city
THANK YOU!
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: October 22, 2025
Public Hearing on Resolution to approve
the 2026-2030 Consolidated Plan and
Community Development Block Grant and
HOME funding recommendations for
inclusion in the 2026 CDBG/HOME
Year 1 Action Plan
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 5, 2025
Department: DCD-CDBG
Presenter: Sarah Lynam
Phone: (360) 473-5375
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2025 City Council approved the 2026 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan outlining
the CDBG and HOME funding allocation process. The Policy Plan included proposed funding
priorities to be included in the City’s 2026-2030 Consolidated Plan. Based on those priorities, the
Project Review Committee (PRC) has developed the 2026 CDBG funding recommendations (Exhibit
A) for Council consideration and approval. Proposed use for City HOME funds are determined by the
Kitsap County Grant Review Committee and are presented to Council for their approval in Exhibit B.
If approved, these submissions will be sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in the City’s Year 1 Action Plan. In compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) regulations (24 CFR Part 91), the CDBG Consolidated Plan is adopted
and submitted every five years. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County entitlement grant
programs, consisting of CDBG and HOME funds, implement this plan as a consortium. The joint plan
includes Housing Components detailing use of HOME funds. The City has a stand-alone plan
(Exhibit C) detailing its use of CDBG funds which will be included in the Consortium Plan. The
current 5-year plan will expire on December 31, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Memo
2. Resolution with Exhibits
Exhibit A: 2026 PRC recommendation funding, Project Descriptions, and PRC meeting
minutes.
Exhibit B: Grant Recommendation Committee HOME Recommendations for Funding
(highlighted on page 2).
Exhibit C: Draft 2026-2060 City of Bremerton Consolidated Plan
3. Power Point Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. Block Grant is a pass-through funding from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. _____ approving the 2026-2030 Consolidated Plan and 2026 City
CDBG and HOME funding recommendations for inclusion in the City’s Year 1 Action Plan and
authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agency grant agreements with substantially the same
terms and conditions as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
C1
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Bremerton City Council
From: Sarah Lynam, CDBG/HOME Administrator
Date: October 13, 2025
Re: 2026-2026 Kitsap County and City of Bremerton Consortium Consolidated Plan
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING PROCESS:
In compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations (24
CFR Part 91), City of Bremerton and Kitsap County prepare a joint 5 year Consolidated Plan for
CDBG and HOME funding. The City has prepared a standalone plan (Exhibit C) which will be included
as an attachment to the joint plan which the County submits on our behalf.
Both plans include a Community Needs Assessment, Market Analysis and Strategic Plan. However,
the joint plan includes additional housing related components and priorities for the use of HOME
funds. This is because CDBG funding cannot be used to create new units of housing.
The planning process involved the assessment of current housing and population needs through the
analysis of available data; public meetings; an online survey; and consultations with service providers
and key stakeholders. This process informed the City's development of CDBG funding priorities.
These priorities went before City Council in June of this year. The following priorities for CDBG were
approved:
Preservation and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing including
o Acquisition of housing to create or preserve units of affordable housing
o Weatherization/repair of existing housing units
Infrastructure and public facilities projects including:
o Street and Sidewalk improvements in low-income neighborhoods
o Parks projects/facilities in low-income areas
Microenterprise Assistance Programs
CITY CDBG/HOME FUNDING FOR 2026:
A notice of funding availability was released on May 30th. A joint funding application was released in
partnership with Kitsap County CDBG, HOME, and CIAH funding on June 16th. Applications were
reviewed by staff for overall eligibility and risk. Eligible applications were then submitted to the CDBG
Project Review Committee for scoring. The PRC conducted meetings and agency interviews (Exhibit
A) and the following projects were selected for funding (see Exhibit A for full descriptions):
Catholic Community Services – Interior rehabilitation of Benedict House men’s shelter
Kitsap Community Resources – Business Education Support Training program (BE$T)
City of Bremerton – ADA curb ramp upgrades
Kitsap Community Resources – Weatherization and minor home repair
The County Grant Review Committee selected the following project for City HOME funds in 2026
(Exhibit B):
Community Frameworks – Downpayment Assistance Program
If approved, these funding recommendations will be included in the City's Year 1 Action Plan submitted
to HUD in November.
NEXT STEPS:
A 30-day comment period will end on October 30th. The comment period was advertised on City social
media, the CDBG email list, and presented to City Council during the Mayor’s report on . Flyers
informing the public about the comment period were also posted in and around City Hall/NDGC. Any
public comments received will be addressed in the final document. A public hearing will be held at the
November 5th meeting of the Bremerton City Council for adoption of the Consolidated Plan and 2026
funding recommendations. The Plan will then be submitted to HUD for final approval before taking effect
January 1, 2026.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of these items please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sarah Lynam
sarah.lynam@ci.bremerton.wa.us, CDBG@bremertonwa.gov
Community Development Block Grant
(360) 473-5375
1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving the 2026-2030
CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ESTABLISHING PROJECTS
AND PROJECT FUNDING LEVELS IN THE 2026 ONE YEAR
ACTION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is an entitlement community which receives a
Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) each year from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”), and also receives funding from HUD’s Home Investment
Partnerships (“HOME”) program through its participation in the Kitsap County HOME
Consortium; and
WHEREAS, as an entitlement community that receives CDBG funds, the City is
required to adopt a stand-alone Five-Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) that outlines the
City’s housing and development needs, sets goals for addressing those needs, and details how
federal funds will be allocated and used over a five-year period; and
WHEREAS, the City utilized a needs assessment, market analysis, and resident and
stakeholder engagement activities to inform the City’s goals and priorities for the allocation of
CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, based on the goals and priorities identified above, the City developed
a Consolidated Plan which identifies the City’s priority needs for the years 2026-2030; and
WHEREAS, the priorities for the Consolidated Plan include: preserving affordable
housing, improvements to public facilities and infrastructure, and microenterprise assistance
projects; and
WHEREAS, for Year 1 of the Consolidated Plan (2026), the City via the
Coordinated Application process with Kitsap County including City HOME and CIAH Grant
Programs, had its own competitive CDBG NOFA which received six applications (4) capital, and
(2) microenterprise applications and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Project Review Committee has reviewed, interviewed and
discussed each of the eligible funding requests and formulated funding recommendations and a
funding contingency plan based on their review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Block Grant staff on Wednesday, September
29th 2025, posted the recommendations to the City of Bremerton’s website and advertised in the
Kitsap Sun a 30-day written public comment period commencing September 29th and concluding
October 30th, 2025; and
WHEREAS, no public comments were received during the public comment period;
and
WHEREAS, a legal ad was placed in the Kitsap Sun on September 29th, 2025
advertising the City of Bremerton Public Hearing adopting the funding recommendations on
November 5th 2025; and
2
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG/HOME staff
presents the Project Review Committee’s recommendations to the City Council for adoption and
inclusion in the Year 1 Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the City of Bremerton’s 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan and the 2026 Year 1 funding recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG projects identified in Exhibit A and HOME project
identified in Exhibit B for the One-Year Plan are eligible for funding because they meet the
required national objectives and the goals and priorities identified in the Consolidated Plan; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution are hereby
incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The 2026 CDBG/HOME Funding Recommendations attached
hereto as Exhibit A and B are approved and will be incorporated into the 2026 Action Plan to be
submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval via the 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan.
SECTION 3. The 2026-2030 Consolidated Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit C is
approved and shall be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
approval.
SECTION 4. 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 th e
validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 5. 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 __________________, 2025.
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ ________________________________
KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk
3
September 29, 2025
City of Bremerton
Block Grant Programs
2026
Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Project Review
Committee
Funding
Recommendations
Exhibit A
The recommendations of the City of Bremerton
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project
Review Committee are released for a 30-day public
comment period (September 29-October 30)
Written comments may be submitted to:
City of Bremerton Block Grant Program
345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 983374
or via email at CDBG@bremertonwa.gov
Minutes from the Committee's meetings are attached
here following the funding recommendations.
2026 CDBG Project Review Committee Funding Recommendations
Project Descriptions
CDBG STAFF ADMINISTRATION FUNDING
MICROENTERPRISE FUNDING -
Kitsap Community Resources: Business Education Support and Training
CDBG CAPITAL FUNDING - Public Facilities
CDBG CAPITAL FUNDING - Preservation of Affordable Housing
Kitsap Community Resources-Weatherization and Minor Home Repair
$1
Funds will be used to provide weatherization and minor home repair services for a minimum of 5 homes within the City of Bremerton. The funds will specifically be used for contractor
labor and materials to install weatherization measures such as surface insulation (attics, walls, floors, and heating ducts), energy efficient heat systems, priority air sealing, and
installation of ventilation. Funds will also be used to achieve additional home repairs such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical repairs necessary to ensure the preservation of installed
measures. Health and safety improvements will also be prioritized, including shower grab bars, slips trips and falls, and wheelchair ramps.
Grant administration is the general management and coordination of the CDBG/HOME programs, including federal regulation compliance, annual monitoring, citizen participation and
development of other sources of funding for community development. 20% of our CDBG entitlement plus program income may be used for planning and administrative costs to deliver
the CDBG program requirements. Those funds not being used for administration and planning purposes will be rolled into project use.
Catholic Community Services - Benedict House - Shelter Improvements
Funds will be used for vital and necessary improvements to Bremerton's only men's shelter. Built in 2006, the building is in need of bathroom remodels, new fire doors to meet fire code
requirements, and HVAC system upgrades. The shelter with 24 emergency shelter beds and 3 respite care beds, currently serves 110 individuals annually with individualized case
management, 3 meals daily, free laundry services, computer and internet access, and transportation assistance.
The BE$T program is designed for low-income individuals and those with limited funds who are interested in mastering the skills necessary to start or expand their own business. The
grant amount will cover wage compensation for two professional business basics class instructors, including one bilingual instructor able to deliver content in Spanish. The program
includes an 8-week business basics training course, peer-led monthly networking groups, and one-on-one consultations upon graduation with instructors and volunteer mentors.
Bremerton Public Works-Pedestrian Priority Network Infrastructure Improvements
Funds will be used for ADA accessible curb ramp upgrades at the intersection of 5th St and Hewitt Ave. This site is along the pedestrian priority network and is one of several pedestrian
ingress and egress routes for employees of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) and military personnel. This site is also in close proximity to City parks and the downtown business
district. Beyond what is budgeted for this site, funds may be used toward other locations in need of ADA curb ramp improvements at the discretion of the Public Works Department in
accordance with current City planning documents.
DRAFT FUNDING RECS FOR PRC DISCUSSION - NOT APPROVED
2026 Estimated HUD Entitlement $300,000
+Estimated Program Income $5,000
Available Prior Year Funds (for capital projects)$130,409
-CDBG Administration (20% of entitlement+ program income)$61,000.00
Available for CDBG Projects $374,409.00
Capital Projects:
Applicant Project Name Amount of Request
Catholic Community Services Benedict House Rehab $152,000.00 152,000.00$
Kitsap Community Resources KCR Weatherization $50,000.00 50,000.00$
City of Bremerton ADA Curb Ramps $142,025.00 112,409.00$
Kitsap Community Resources KCR BE$T $60,000.00 60,000.00$
WeeCare (Upwards)BOOST Microenterprise $80,000.00 -$
Total Requested: $484,025.00 $374,409.00
Total Estimated amount available for Capital Projects $374,409.00 $374,409.00
-$109,616.00 $0.00
Contingencies
If the City receives more than $300,000 in CDBG entitlement funds, then additional funds will go to City of Bremerton Public Works Dept for ADA curb ramp
upgrades up to their budget of $142,025. If the City receives less than $300,000 in CDBG entitlement funds, the amount awarded to City of Bremerton Public
Works Dept for ADA curb ramp upgrades will be decreased. Should any contingencies beyond those above occur, the CDBG Project Review Committee with
reconvene.
CITY OF BREMERTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF INITIAL DELIBERATION MEETING
August 28, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
CDBG Administrator Sarah Lynam called the meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Project
Review Committee to order at 1:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Committee Members Present
Chuck Henderson, Citizen-At-Large
Grace Crowley, Citizen-At-large
Rick Tift, Planning Commissioner
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Sharon Schwartz, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Staff Present
Sarah Lynam, CDBG Administrator
Committee Members Absent
Jeff Coughlin, Councilmember
Mike Riley, Director, Department of Financial Services
MEETING PROCESS
The Committee met for orientation and pre-deliberation on Thursday, August 28, 2025 where staff presented each
project, project’s risk score, and the project’s overall score. Staff also presented information about the availability of
funds and other CDBG regulatory considerations. The Committee had an initial review of each project and had
preliminary deliberations. The Committee prepared questions for agency interviews.
DELIBERATIONS BY PROJECT
BHA
Applicant pulled project from consideration due to federal requirements and potential delays/additional costs.
BOOST
Committee members expressed interest in seeing the internal controls audit mentioned in the organization’s single
audit. Committee members requested staff reach out to City of Bellevue to ask about program outcomes.
Committee member asked if the new preschool build geared towards shipyard and military families will affect Boost’s
efforts? Staff to follow up with more information about BOOST DoD partnerships.
DRAFT
Community Development Block Grant Project Review Committee Minutes
August 28, 2025 ~ Page 2 of 2
CCS
Committee members expressed interest in seeing the internal controls audit mentioned in the organization’s single
audit. Do they have other improvements they can make? Staff will follow up with information prior to interview.
COB
Committee members would like information about how Public Works select their sites. Why these curbs ramp
improvements and not one of the other hundreds that need to be fixed? Ms. Lynam informed the Committee that past
projects have come in under budget every year. Committee agreed that they should keep this in mind with their ask.
Committee members asked why they picked this area when its not a huge shipyard egress area. Can they pivot to work
around some of the schools? What other source of funding do they have for curb ramps? Do they get money from car
tabs? Staff will follow up with information prior to interview.
KCR BEST
What have the outcomes been over the last few years?
KCR WIX
SVDP
Concerns about them meeting their proposed deadline without permits submitted yet. Committee member asked
about the amount of funding committed and if there were any additional federal funds already in this project? Due to
the size and scale of the project Staff informed the Committee that all federal requirements would apply.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Project Review Committee will be held on Tuesday,
September 9, 2025.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m.
CITY OF BREMERTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF INTERVIEW DAY 1 MEETING
September 9, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
CDBG Administrator Sarah Lynam called the meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Project
Review Committee to order at 12:45 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Committee Members Present
Chuck Henderson, Citizen-At-Large
Grace Crowley, Citizen-At-large
Rick Tift, Planning Commissioner
Jeff Coughlin, Councilmember
Mike Riley, Director, Department of Financial Services
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Sharon Schwartz, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Staff Present
Sarah Lynam, CDBG Administrator
MEETING PROCESS
The Committee met for deliberation and interviews on Tuesday, September 9, 2025 where applicants for CDBG
capital funding presented their projects. Presenters were allowed 15 minutes, with 20 minutes allowed for Q&A
from the Committee members. The Committee also took the opportunity between interviews to discuss and debrief.
DELIBERATIONS BY PROJECT
CCS Benedict House Renovation
Julie, Janae, Gabe and Faatima from CCS presented on their Benedict House renovations funding request. Providing
a brief overview of the program and how it provides services in the community. CDBG PRC asked CCS to provide a
more up to date accurate funding request based on getting rid of security cameras and adding other construction needs.
It was acknowledged that this application was the top scorer, and that Kitsap County would not be reviewing this
application.
KCR Weatherization
Nate and Irmgard from KCR presented on their Weatherization program funding ask. KCR braids together multiple
sources of funding to complete weatherization work. There are protections in place so that owners cannot increase
rent if value from homes go up if weatherization increases it. The Committee asked questions about the increased cost
of performing this type of work and running the program. It was noted that 3 homes had weatherization projects
completed in 2024. The City also has a general fund contract with KCR for weatherization.
DRAFT
Community Development Block Grant Project Review Committee Minutes
September 9, 2025 ~ Page 2 of 2
City of Bremerton Public Works – ADA curb ramps
Chris, Gunnar and Ron from the CoB PW&U Department provided a PowerPoint presentation on ADA curb ramp
upgrades at 2 intersections. Questions arose about why those specific intersections were chosen and if they provide
notifications to neighbors. Committee noted that CoB has budget for these types of projects, but that there is limited
other funding.
SVDP- Stella Maris Shelter Expansion
Joe from SVdP and Geoffrey and Beth from Beacon Development Group provided a brief overview of their project
ask. Beacon noted that it might not be the best fit because of federal regulations and how it would apply over the
entirety of the project not just this specific ask, potentially increasing the costs and delaying timeline to opening.
Questions were raised on if SVdP would withdraw their application for funding consideration.
Other Discussion
A question was brought up about prior year CDBG funding based on recent public comments related to projects on
4th Street. Director of DCD provided some context on funding priorities that the City Council had years ago, as well
as the priorities that were in prior Consolidated Plans. During the specific timeframe the priority was to focus money
in the downtown area because it was severely blighted. Staff provided context to the two economic development
projects on 4th Street which received CDBG funding in 2017. These activities included facade improvements and
fire sprinklers in the blighted area. These projects were allowed and eligible. Furthermore, funds awarded to the
Quincy Square project in FY18 but due to delays, were reallocated to the YWCA shelter.
Staff briefly reviewed the amount of available funds and how the projects ranked.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Project Review Committee will be held on
Thursday, September 11, 2025. The Committee will hold interviews for the two micro-enterprise project applicants
and make their final funding decisions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
CITY OF BREMERTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF INTERVIEWS DAY 2 MEETING
September 11, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
CDBG Administrator Sarah Lynam called the meeting of the Community Development Block Grant Project
Review Committee to order at 8:45 a.m.
ATTENDANCE
Committee Members Present
Chuck Henderson, Citizen-At-Large
Grace Crowley, Citizen-At-large
Rick Tift, Planning Commissioner
Jeff Coughlin, Councilmember
Mike Riley, Director, Department of Financial Services
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Sharon Schwartz, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Staff Present
Sarah Lynam, CDBG Administrator
MEETING PROCESS
The Committee met for deliberations and interviews on Thursday, September 11, 2025, where applicants for CDBG
capital funding presented their projects. Presenters were allowed 15 minutes, with 20 minutes allowed for Q&A
from the Committee members. The Committee also took the opportunity between interviews to discuss and debrief.
DELIBERATIONS BY PROJECT
BOOST by Upwards LLC
Melanie Faure of Upwards provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining their program and funding request. BOOST
highlighted their success in the City of Bellevue and what they had been able to accomplish with providing tools and
one-on-one training to home daycare businesses thus far. Committee members asked about their
government (including Army National Guard) and private company partnerships. Upwards was awarded FY ' 25
CDBG funds, however due to delays at the federal level, they have not been able to start their City of Bremerton
BOOST program. Questions were raised about scalability and what their baseline costs could be in order to operate
in the jurisdiction.
KCR BE$T
Arber and John from KCR provided a PowerPoint presentation on the BE$T program and their funding request.
They highlighted their 8-week business class program, which are taught in both English and Spanish.
Providing three success stories over the past couple of years. In the past five years they’ve successfully helped two
childcare businesses
DRAFT
Community Development Block Grant Project Review Committee Minutes
September 9, 2025 ~ Page 2 of 2
launch, with a third currently going through the program right now. Committee members praised the BE$T program
efforts and the difference it makes in the community.
FUNDING PRIORITIES
SVdP has pulled their application from consideration. It was noted that these submitted projects align with the city
council’s goals of projects which support affordable housing and economic opportunity. Staff presented options for
funding based on project ranking, the interview process, and committee input. The committee decided to fully fund
CCS Benedict House ($152,000), KCR BE$T ($60,000), KCR Weatherization ($50,000) and partially fund the CoB
ADA curb ramps ($119,975). The committee decided not to fund Upwards’s BOOST program this year, however
noted that we should encourage them to apply next year, when they should have some program data to show their
program effectiveness. Several committee members noted that after listening to the KCR BE$T presentation, it
ranked ahead of the ADA curb ramp application for them. If the City receives more funding than projected, the
contingency would be to use those monies to fully fund the ADA curb ramps ask ($142,025) with any remaining
rolling over to the following year.
NEXT MEETING
Not Applicable. The committee is adjourned until next year for the FY27 CDBG funding cycle.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
Wheaton Landing provides two-bedroom units for families with children at or below 30% AMI, prioritizing those
experiencing or at risk of homelessness, domestic violence survivors, veterans, and persons with disabilities. All units
are supported by HUD Section 8 project-based vouchers, ensuring long-term affordability. Partnering with the
Bremerton School District and local nonprofits, the project will connect residents to tutoring, mental health services,
and other supports to help families stabilize and children thrive.
The City of Poulsbo intends to launch its “ADUs for Affordability” initiative to create small, independent rental homes
for low-income older adults. This pilot project will use $235,000 in grant funds (plus local housing tax funds) to build an
800 sq. ft., two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on public or donated land, serving residents earning 60% or less
of area median income. This home will provide permanent, affordable housing without onsite services, with modest
rent covering maintenance and reserves. The program is designed as a model to expand affordable housing stock
through public-private partnerships and future land donations.
$100,000 $ 0
Benedict House, the only men’s homeless shelter in Kitsap County the provides 24 beds, meals, case management, and
supportive services to about 110 men annually, including veterans, elderly, and those with behavioral health needs. The
proposed work includes bathroom remodels, new fire and entry doors, and updated security systems to ensure long-
term safety, accessibility, and compliance. By extending the facility’s usability, the project will help sustain Benedict
House’s role as a vital community resource for homeless men in Bremerton and surrounding counties.
$235,000 $ 0
Catholic Community Services
Benedict House
Project Type: Public Facility (Rehab)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
City of Poulsbo
ADU for Affordability
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition & Construction)
Location: Poulsbo
Service Area: Poulsbo
95 Households
1 Household
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
$ 0
The proposed Hybrid Low-Barrier Shelter will develop 60 tiny-home units of transitional housing and 60 emergency
shelter beds at 1231 Sheridan Road in Bremerton. On-site partners will provide wrap-around supports such as health
care, mental-health services, coordinated entry, and workforce connections to help residents stabilize and transition
into permanent housing. BHA requests $1.61 million in grant funding toward site development as part of a broader,
multi-agency effort with committed city and county support.
$1,245,200
Bremerton Housing Authority
Hybrid Shelter
Project Type: Public Facility (Shelter)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton
Bremerton Housing Authority
Wheaton Landing Apartments
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton
100 Individuals
23 Households
$1,611,510
$ 0
Exhibit B
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Funds will be used for personnel, administration, and construction costs associated with the home rehabilitation
program which provides 20-year deferred loans or grants to very-low and extremely low-income homeowners for
repairs to address health, safety, and accessibility issues. Housing Kitsap staff performs the home inspections, creates a
scope of work, assists homeowners with contractor selection, monitors the progress and signs off project completion
and contractor payments.
Eagle's Wings
Shelter Project
Project Type: Public Facility (Aquisition & Rehab)
Location: Port Orchard
Service Area: Kitsap County
200 Individuals $1,649,912 $ 0
Fund will be used to aquire and renovate a 7,000-square-foot building in Gorst, WA, into a 28-bed, low-barrier
congregate shelter for adults experiencing homelessness. The facility will provide wraparound services, including case
management, housing navigation, peer support, and on-site nursing, with 24/7 staffing. Co-located with a 10-bed
transitional housing program, the site is strategically located for accessibility while minimizing neighborhood
opposition. This project aims to address Kitsap County’s shortage of low-barrier shelter beds and create a sustainable
pathway from homelessness to permanent housing.
Housing Kitsap
Park Place
Project Type: Rental Housing (Rehab.)
Location: Unincorporated East Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton
55 Households $180,000 $180,000
CDBG
Funds will be used to rehabilitate Park Place Apartments in Bremerton by replacing 55 aging second- and third-story
decks identified in a Capital Needs Assessment. The 87-unit mixed-income community, serving very low- to moderate-
income households, includes families supported by Project-Based Vouchers and LIHTC programs. This shovel-ready
project will preserve affordable housing, prevent future safety issues, and extend the property’s useful life without
displacing residents. The investment aligns with Kitsap County’s goals to preserve existing affordable rental housing and
ensure long-term stability for low-income families.
Housing Kitsap
Home Rehabilitation Program
Project Type: Housing (Homeownership Rehab)
Location: Silverdale
Service Area: Kitsap County (excluding Bremerton)
12 Households $225,000 $225,000
CDBG
Community Frameworks
Kitsap Homeownership - Down Payment Assistance
Project Type: Homeownership Assistance
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
8 Households $2,283,851
$389,132
County HOME
$114,622
Bremerton HOME
Funds will be used for Down Payment Assistance (DPA) and direct administrative costs of the Kitsap County
Homeownership program. The program will pair HOME funds with internal and lender-partner funds to provide up to
20% DPA and closing cost assistance to program-qualified, mortgage-ready homebuyers at or below 80% Area Median
Income purchasing an eligible home in Kitsap County. Homebuyer education and Individual Pre-Purchase Counseling is
required for all participants. All DPA money revolves to future low-income homebuyers in perpetuity.
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Homey Corps
Women's Recovery
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition & Rehab)
Location: Central Kitsap County
Service Area: East Bremerton
10 Households $1,400,300 $ 0
Home Corps will acquire and rehabilitate a single-family home in Central Kitsap County to serve as a women-only
recovery residence. The project will house 10 formerly incarcerated women with substance use and co-occurring
disorders, offering safe housing integrated with Homey Corps’ Comprehensive Midstream Reentry Program.
Residents will receive rental assistance, therapy, peer support, benefits coordination, education, and community
reintegration services designed to promote long-term stability.
Housing Kitsap
Stoneridge Townhome
Project Type: Rental Housing (New Construction)
Location: Silverdale
Service Area: Kitsap County
3 Households $2,000,000 $1,000,000
CIAH
The Stoneridge Townhomes project, led by Housing Kitsap in partnership with Lennar Homes, will deliver 6 new
affordable rental townhomes within a larger 750+ unit development in Central Kitsap. Three units will be reserved
for veterans using HUD-VASH vouchers and three for survivors of domestic violence. This project expands Housing
Kitsap’s affordable housing portfolio, addressing a critical shortage in the Silverdale area by providing stable, income-
restricted homes close to jobs, services, and transit.
Housing Kitsap
Rhododendron
Project Type: Rental Housing (Rehab)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: Bainbridge Island
50 Households $140,000 $140,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for the rehabilitation of the Rhododendron Apartments on Bainbridge Island, Washington. The
project involves replacing the electrical panels at the 50-unit apartment community, which was built in 1976 and is
owned by the housing authority. The apartments are home to low-income individuals and families, with 44 of the 50
units receiving rental assistance through USDA-RA. The project aims to provide a safe living environment for tenants
and is part of Housing Kitsap's mission to preserve affordable housing.
Housing Kitsap
Southern Cross
Project Type: Rental Housing (New Construction)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: Kitsap County
4 Households $350,000 $350,000
County HOME
Funds will be used for building two single-family homes with attached accessory dwelling units on Bainbridge Island,
creating four new affordable rental units. The homes will serve households earning 30–60 percent of area median
income, supported by four Project-Based Vouchers and a long-term affordability covenant. Located in a high-cost
area, the project addresses a critical shortage of affordable housing while maintaining community character.
Housing Kitsap seeks grant funding to complete construction, with additional financing secured through agency
funds and partner commitments.
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Kitsap Mental Health Services
ADU
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition & Construction)
Location: Port Orchard & Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
2 Households $864,591 $ 0
Kitsap Mental Health Services (KMHS) will develop two new two-bedroom accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Kitsap
County on property owned by KMHS. These units will provide permanent supportive housing for families with
incomes at or below 30 percent AMI, where at least one adult has a mental health diagnosis and is receiving KMHS
services. Tenants will pay 30 percent of their income toward rent, supported by Project-Based Vouchers from the
Bremerton Housing Authority to ensure long-term affordability. The project aligns with KMHS’s mission of combining
housing and behavioral health support to reduce homelessness and promote stability for vulnerable families.
Housing Resources Bainbridge
Finch Green
Project Type: Housing (Homeownership)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: Kitsap County
22 Households $1,000,000 $ 0
Funds will be used to create 22 permanently affordable single-family homes on land donated by Bethany Lutheran
Church. Homes will be sold through a community land trust model, ensuring long-term affordability for low- and
moderate-income families, with 16 households earning ≤80 percent AMI and 6 households at 81–100 percent AMI.
HRB is requesting $1 million in grant funding—split between CIAH funds for construction and HOME funds for gap
financing—to make mortgage debt sustainable for buyers. Designed to be sustainable, accessible, and community-
oriented, Finch Green will provide green spaces, ADA-friendly units, and proximity to schools, transit, and services.
Kitsap Community Resources (KCR)
Business Education Support & Training (BE$T)
Project Type: Microenterprise Business Assistance
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
60 Individuals $60,000 $ 0
Funds will be used for staff, program costs, and direct client support costs of the Business, Education, Support &
Training (BE$T) Program which increases economic opportunities for low-income individuals who want to start or
expand their own micro-enterprise business by providing 8-week training classes offered once per quarter, monthly
networking events (in English and Spanish), and one-on-one consultations for participants after they graduate. In
addition, a 6-week training course will be offered in Spanish four times per year. Micro-enterprise business is a
business with five or fewer employees, including the owner. The program is requesting $120,000 total - $60,000 from
the County and $60,000 from the City of Bremerton.
Kitsap Community Resources (KCR)
Weatherization and Minor Home Repair
Project Type: Housing (Homeownership Rehab.)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Kitsap County
15 Households $100,000 $100,000
CDBG
Funds will be used for contractor labor and materials, program staff wages & benefits, and related support costs for
the Weatherization Program. The Program works with pre-approved Kitsap County contractors to perform
weatherization measures and minor home repair for homeowner and rental households resulting in 30% reduction in
energy usage. The program serves households below 50% Area Median Income with priority given to those with
extremely high housing burden, seniors, disabled persons, and families with children under 19 years of age,
throughout Kitsap County. The program is requesting $200,000 total - $150,000 from the County and $50,000 from
the City of Bremerton.
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI)
625 Winslow
Project Type: Rental Housing (New Construction)
Location: Bainbridge Island
Service Area: Bainbridge Island & surrounding areas in
Kitsap County
92 Households $756,492 $ 0
Funds will be used to develop 625 Winslow, a 92-unit affordable housing project on Bainbridge Island. The new
construction will transform the former police station site into a mixed-use community with studios, one-, two-, and
three-bedroom units (including live-work spaces), plus ground-floor commercial space. All units will serve households
earning ≤60 percent of AMI, with 20 percent reserved for large families and 20 percent for people with disabilities.
Supported by $3M and land from the City of Bainbridge Island, the project is leveraging tax credits, state funds, and
private financing to create long-term affordable housing in a high-opportunity, transit-accessible neighborhood.
Peninsula Community Health Services (PCHS)
Hemlock House
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition & Rehab)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton
6 Households $495,000 $ 0
Peninsula Community Health Services will build a multi-story building with 15 units serving 1-2 people each and an
estimated 75 people per year. The building’s target population is individuals who are discharged from PCHS’s Medical
Respite Center across the street and would likely be entering homelessness. Residents will have access to shared
laundry facilities and a rooftop deck, and the building’s location in downtown Bremerton would give residents access
to a host of wrap-around services from PCHS and partner organizations, as well as public transit options.
Related Affordable
Hostmark Village
Project Type: Rental Housing (Aquisition & Rehab)
Location: Poulsbo
Service Area: Kitsap County
120 Households $3,000,000 $ 0
Funds will be used for Related Affordable’s acquisition and rehabilitation of Hostmark Village Cove, a 120-unit Section
8 senior housing community in Poulsbo, WA. The $3 million loan request will support critical infrastructure upgrades,
safety improvements, and resident services, ensuring long-term affordability through a 20-year Section 8 contract
extension and at least 30 years of deed restrictions. The project addresses urgent community need by preserving
deeply affordable housing for elderly and disabled residents in a gentrifying area with a five-year waitlist. With strong
support from local and state partners, the initiative will protect housing stability for extremely low-income seniors
while modernizing the property for decades to come.
Saint Vincent de Paul
Star of Hope
Project Type: Public Facility
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton & Kitsap County
17 Individuals $490,000 $ 0
Saint Vincent dePaul will expand the current 25-bed congregate shelter for women and children into a 42-bed shelter.
The shelter expansion will include a new pet boarding and outdoor areas, as well as a new dining room. The
assistance office will provide services focused on establishing pathways to long-term housing and economic stability
for residents, including transitional and permanent housing in SVdP’s wider Phase I Campus Revitalization Project.
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Saint Vincent de Paul
Campus Revitalization Project
Project Type: Housing (new construction)
Location: Bremerton
Service Area: Bremerton & Kitsap County
38 Households $3,290,820 $1,765,388
CIAH
Saint Vincent dePaul's Campus Revitalization Project will include 10 transitional units and 28 permanent supportive
housing units in a four-story building adjacent to the Stella Maris Shelter for women and children. This design aims to
provide equitable housing opportunities, particularly targeting vulnerable populations such as women transitioning from
the WA Corrections Center for Women and those eligible for Washington's Apple Health & Home program. The complex
will offer comprehensive support services transitional and permanent supportive housing, which will focus on establishing
pathways to long-term housing and economic stability for residents.
Trillium Housing Services
Meadowdale North Apartments
Project Type: Rental Housing (New Construction)
Location: Unincorporated East Bremerton
Service Area: Countywide
62 Households $2,500,000 $2,500,000
CIAH
Trillium, utilizing 4% WSHFC tax credits if awarded, will build 62 affordable units and feature a mix of two, three and four-
bedroom apartments for individuals and families earning 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The project is
designed to serve multi-generational families, with its larger three and four-bedroom units, and 10% of units are reserved
for people with disabilities. The site will feature a playground and ample parking. It is also located directly adjacent to the
region’s main bus corridor, and within walking distance of Walmart on Highway 303.
Trillium Housing Services
Meadowdale Trails Apartments
Project Type: Rental Housing (New Construction)
Location: Unincorporated East Bremerton
Service Area: Countywide
208 Households $134,612 $134,612
CIAH
Trillium, utilizing 4% WSHFC tax credits if awarded, would build 208 affordable units and feature a mix of two, three and
four-bedroom apartments for individuals and families earning 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The project
is designed to serve multi-generational families, with its larger three and four-bedroom units, and 10% of units are
reserved for people with disabilities. The site will feature a community center, business center, sport court, and ample
parking. It is also located directly adjacent to the region’s main bus corridor, and within walking distance of the Walmart
on Highway 303.
Upwards
BOOST
Project Type: Microenterprise Business Assistance
Location: Services conducted virtually
Service Area: Kitsap County & City of Bremerton
8 Individuals $64,000 $ 0
Funds will be used to cover staff costs for staff members working in the BOOST program. The BOOST program provides
low-to- moderate-income women and minority childcare providers with personalized coaching and digital tools to
optimize operations and revenue, allowing them to efficiently manage and expand their small businesses, creating local
jobs and increasing access to affordable childcare. Specific activities include direct marketing support, family matching
support, enrollment automation, electronic Child Profiles that track educational progress, education and curriculum
planning and other business support activities.
2026 Coordinated Grant Application
Department of Human Services
CDBG, HOME, and CIAH Funds
Capital Project Application Summaries
Agency / Project / Description 2026 Request Recommendations
Vadis
Kitsap House
Project Type: Rental Housing (Acquisition & Rehab)
Location: Countywide
Service Area: Countywide
1 Household $645,000 $ 0
Vadis will acquire and rehabilitate a three-bedroom, two-bathroom, single-story home in Kitsap County for people
with disabilities. The home will be renovated for ADA accessibility, including widened doors, accessible bathrooms,
and a flexible living space to support tenant needs. Tenants must have a documented disability and meet HUD low-
income requirements, with rent set at no more than 30% of their income. This project aims to provide safe,
affordable, and community-integrated housing that eliminates barriers faced in the private rental market
September 29, 2025
City of Bremerton
Block Grant Programs
2026-2030
Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Consolidated Plan
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
KITSAP COUNTY CDBG AND HOME
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING PROCESS
Exhibit C
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ........................................................................ 2
The Process ................................................................................................................................................... 5
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies - 91.200(b) ...................................................................................... 5
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(l) and 91.315(l) ............................... 6
PR-15 Citizen Participation - 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) .................................................. 11
Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 17
NA-05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 17
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.415, 91.215 (f) ........................................... 19
Housing Market Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 22
MA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 22
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets - 91.410, 91.210(f) ........................................... 23
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ....................................................................................... 31
MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -
91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 33
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) ........................................................................... 34
Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 35
SP-05 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 35
SP-10 Geographic Priorities - 91.415, 91.215(a)(1) ................................................................................ 37
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.415, 91.215(a)(2)............................................................................................ 38
SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards - 91.415, 91.215(i) .............................................................................. 50
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy - 91.415, 91.215(j) ..................................................................................... 51
SP-80 Monitoring - 91.230 ...................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Community Survey Results ......................................................................................................................... 53
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
The City of Bremerton Washington is an entitlement community and is a member of the Kitsap County
HOME Consortium where Kitsap County is the lead entity for the Consolidated Plan. The City of
Bremerton receives their own CDBG funds and prepares our own non-housing Consolidated Plan and
our own Action Plan. The City of Bremerton Community Development Block Grant Program is a
component of the Department of Community Development and is responsible for the administration of
City CDBG funds. HOME funds are administered by Kitsap County. The City of Bremerton City Council
holds public hearings and provides important policy direction.
The Consolidated Plan follows requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and uses HUD's format and data tables required for plans adopted after November 15, 2012. The
purpose of this plan is to evaluate community needs and set goals for the five-year plan period. Through
a Community Needs Assessment, Housing Market Analysis and with community input, the City of
Bremerton has developed a Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan outlines the priorities and goals which
guide the allocation of funds over the five-year period. The City will develop an Action Plan annually
which will include projects awarded funds through an annual application process. These projects will
address the priorities and goals over the 5-year period.
2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment
Overview
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
funds will be used over the next five years to address the needs outlined in the Strategic Plan. HUD's
objectives guiding the proposed activities are
• Provide decent affordable housing;
• Create suitable living environments; and
• Create economic opportunities.
The following are the priorities and goals outlined in the Strategic Plan portion of this document. These
will guide the investment of CDBG and HOME funds in the City of Bremerton. The City intends to utilize
its CDBG and HOME funds in the most efficient way possible to ensure projects/activities in the
Community which can utilize the funds are able to do so.
Strategic Plan Priorities
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Development and preservation of affordable rental and homeowner housing. This includes
acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing as well as rehabilitation/weatherization of single-
family housing and direct homebuyer assistance.
• Increased economic opportunities for low-income individuals – funding will be targeted towards
microenterprise assistance.
• Public facilities and infrastructure projects including improvements to City streets, sidewalks,
parks and vital community centers, shelters or other public facilities.
3. Evaluation of past performance
CDBG and HOME funds have been used over the last Consolidated Plan period 2021- 2025 to provide
affordable housing, infrastructure and public facility improvements and assistance to microenterprise
businesses. In addition, the City received CDBG-CV funds and HOME-ARP funds during the COVID-19
pandemic which provided emergency rental assistance, renovated a building to serve as a homeless
shelter, provided funding for homelessness prevention services, and funded construction and
acquisition costs to create new units of affordable housing. Together these funds combined with other
federal, state and local sources have provided funding for:
• Preservation of affordable housing units through weatherization and health/safety
improvement projects.
• Microenterprise assistance and job training programs for low-moderate income residents.
• Numerous ADA upgrades to City sidewalks and curb ramps making connections and improving
mobility throughout the City.
• Emergency rental assistance and homelessness prevention activities.
• Major accessibility upgrades to City parks.
• Improvements to vital community centers/shelters including YWCA Alive Shelter and
Administrative building.
4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
Development of this plan is the result of evaluation of information and data from a variety of sources,
including the preparation of a Community Needs Assessment and Housing Market Analysis,
consultations with local municipalities, government and non-profit agencies, an online community
survey, two public comment periods and two public hearings. The consultation and citizen participation
process is described in detail in the Process section of this plan. All public comments received during the
public comment periods will be addressed and included in the final Consolidated Plan before submission
to HUD.
5. Summary of public comments
No comments received to date
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them
No comments received to date.
7. Summary
The City of Bremerton along with Kitsap County will implement the goals and priorities of the 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan through an annual competitive grant award process. CDBG and HOME funding
together with other local funding for affordable housing, homelessness, mental health, chemical
dependency and therapeutic courts is allocated through the Coordinated Grant Application Process. The
process utilizes a single website to post information including the schedule for the grant cycle, Policy
Plans, RFP’s and NOFA’s, links to the online application platform, funding awards, and information about
written comment periods and public hearings. This process helps eliminate duplication of funding and
ensures limited CDBG and HOME dollars are used to fill gaps other funding cannot fill.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies - 91.200(b)
1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source
The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and
those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator BREMERTON Department of Community
Development
HOME Administrator BREMERTON Department of Housing and Community
Services
Table 1– Responsible Agencies
Narrative
Kitsap County is the lead entity for the Consolidated Plan. The City of Bremerton receives their own
CDBG funds and prepares their own associated Action Plan. The City of Bremerton administrates their
CDBG funds through the City’s Dept. of Community Development. The Bremerton City Council holds
public hearings and provides policy direction for CDBG funds and the City’s portion of HOME funds. The
Kitsap County Block Grant Program, as part of the Kitsap County Dept. of Human Services, is responsible
for the administration of County CDBG and HOME funds. The Board of County Commissioners holds
public hearings and provides policy direction. Kitsap County is the lead agency for HOME Consortium
funds and provides contract administration.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Sarah Lynam, CDBG Administrator
City of Bremerton
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337-1873
Email: sarah.lynam@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(l) and
91.315(l)
1. Introduction
The City of Bremerton has consulted with other government agencies, housing and service providers,
advisory and community boards, planning commission, City Council, and the public in the development
of this plan. Consultation included conducting a survey; review of published plans and studies; requests
to specific agencies to gather additional data and two written comment periods.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between
public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health
and service agencies (91.215(I)).
The City has ongoing coordination and communication between housing providers and health, mental
health, immigrant assistance agencies, City departments, Continuum of Care and Housing Solutions
center and service agencies through on-going meetings and coordinated planning. All organizations
serving the Cities lowest income residents participate in the Kitsap Housing and Homelessness Coalition
(Continuum of Care). Through regular meetings information is shared and gaps in service are identified.
Housing providers partner with those serving special needs populations to provide housing to the City's
most vulnerable and work together to identify needs and develop new projects. The Housing Solutions
Center is Kitsap County's single point of entry for those needing housing. The goal of the HSC is to
prevent homelessness when possible and move people as quickly as possible into shelter or permanent
housing. In 2024 with HOME-ARP funding the City and County helped fund a Housing Navigator position
at the Bremerton Housing Authority which has been a very successful pilot program, reaching more than
500 individuals in 2024, and helping individuals already with Housing Vouchers find available units.
The City worked with Kitsap County to enhance coordination through implementation of the
Coordinated Grant Process. This single online application platform, Fluid Review, is used for CDBG,
HOME, Affordable Housing Grant Program (AHGP) funds and Homeless Housing Grant Program (HHGP)
funds. Funding is prioritized through the Consolidated Plan for CDBG and HOME and Kitsap Homeless
Housing Plan for AHGP and HHGP funds. Through this process duplication of funding is minimized and
high priority projects are provided an opportunity to maximize local funding. The City has built in
infrastructure in the Consolidated Plan to allow the City Council the opportunity to focus or target
funding through the Policy Plan.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of
homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness
Almost all organizations who serve Kitsap's lowest income residents participate in the Kitsap Housing
and Homelessness Coalition (KHHC) (Continuum of Care). The KHHC is a large, active and engaged
coalition of member agencies who serve the needs of the homeless and those living in poverty in Kitsap
County. The KHHC meets monthly to discuss and share information on housing, prevention of
homelessness, restoration of homeless individuals and families to stable living environments, and to
promote community awareness of homelessness through education, legislative advocacy, mutual
support and the sharing of resources. The KHHC members work closely with City staff and City Council
representatives to continue to allow for contributed City resources to assist with current homeless
needs and implementation of solutions.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate
outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS
The City does not receive an allocation of ESG
2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process
and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other
entities.
See Table 2 below.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table 2– Agencies, groups, organizations who participated
1 Agency/Group/Organization Bremerton Housing Authority
Agency/Group/Organization Type PHA
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
The City of Bremerton is in regular communication
and is a working partner with the Bremerton
Housing Authority. Through this partnership the City
was able to establish an emergency rental assistance
program for both households affected by COVID-19
(CARES Act), and for those who are financially
struggling. The Housing Authority provided feedback
prior to the release of the public survey on the need
for more units of affordable housing in the City.
2 Agency/Group/Organization Kitsap Mental Health Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-Persons with Disabilities
Services-Health
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Kitsap Mental Health is the County's primary mental
health and substance abuse service provider. They
provided feedback on the special needs population
and how the City can better help those in our
community.
4 Agency/Group/Organization City of Bremerton Department of Community
Development
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local
Planning organization
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
City of Bremerton staff provided data and
information for the Needs Assessment and Market
Analysis section of the plan.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
5 Agency/Group/Organization Kitsap Mental Health Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Persons with Disabilities
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Agency provided narrative and data on the housing
and service needs of persons with mental illness.
7 Agency/Group/Organization Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Regional organization
What section of the Plan was addressed
by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
KEDA maintains economic data including the
County's top employers and industries.
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic
Plan overlap with the goals of each
plan?
Continuum of Care Washington State Balance of
State
Goals are consistent with the goals of
the Continuum of Care
City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan
City of Bremerton Dept. of
Community Development
Goals are consistent with elements of
the City Comprehensive Plan.
Table 3– Other local / regional / federal planning efforts
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any
adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan
(91.215(l))
The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County form a consortium for HOME funds.
The County and City of Bremerton work closely together to coordinate policies and funding strategies.
The goals and outcomes identified in the Strategic Plan will be accomplished in partnership with the
county’s housing and social service providers and in cooperation with cities. Staff made presentations to
each of the cities that are part of the Urban County and HOME Consortium early in the process. These
presentations were designed to inform elected officials and the public in attendance about the
Consolidated Plan, its purpose, the planning timeline and opportunities for input. Meetings occurred on
the following dates: Bremerton City Council – 2/19/2025
Narrative
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-15 Citizen Participation - 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
The Citizen Participation Plan is updated annually and the latest version was adopted in 2025 for the 2026 program year. The Citizen
Participation Plan is a component of the annual Policy Plan and is updated and adopted annually by the Bremerton City Council. Based on the
strategies outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan, the City and County conducted several face-to-face and email consultation with service
providers and agencies. The City also conducted a consolidated planning survey as well as a series of public hearings and participation with the
Continuum of Care.. The City also took into consideration already existing community outreach documents such as Kitsap Community Resources
Community Needs Assessment, the Affordable Housing Market Analysis which was done in consultation with the City and the County, and
Consolidated Planning updates.
In early 2025 a community survey was launched and was open until the end of March. There were 610 respondents, and of those 126
respondents were from Bremerton zip codes. The survey was announced on the County and City of Bremerton web sites which triggered
electronic notification of the survey availability to all subscribers which includes citizens and agencies. A press release was issued which included
posting on social media and the County’s main webpage and widespread notification to all subscribers of the City's Federal Grants page. The
survey was designed to solicit input on challenges and priorities related to affordable housing, economic development and community services
and facilities. It included 49 different priorities to rank across six categories –public services, public facilities, rental housing needs, public
improvements, homeowner housing needs, and economic development activities.
County Wide Results
Mental health services was the highest-ranking single priority – by a significant margin. Mental and general health services, and their respective
facilities, were respondents’ top-ranked priority overall. Various affordable housing-related needs were the next highest-ranked priorities.
Services generally ranked the highest, as a category, with senior, fair housing, homeless, disable persons, substance abuse, and transportation
services all ranking highly, in addition to the overall highest-ranking mental and general health services. Public facilities was the next highest-
ranking category, after services and affordable housing. High-ranking public facilities included health care, food bank, homeless shelter,
childcare, and parks and recreation facilities. Homeowner housing needs was the next highest-ranking category, with the development of new,
affordable homeowner housing ranking much higher than other priorities in the category, followed by down payment-assistance programs as
another relatively popular priority. Public improvements generally ranked lower, although street and sidewalk improvements ranked highly, and
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
street lighting and parks ranked moderately. Lastly, most respondents agreed that most of the economic development activities were among
their lowest priorities.
Results from City Zip codes.
Project types/needs are ranked overall and then by category. Services for homeless persons, mental health services, and health services were
ranked as high needs. It is noted later in this plan that this high need is better addressed with funds outside of City CDBG/HOME
funding. Bremerton’s CDBG funding is primarily focused on capital improvement projects. In terms of capital priorities, preservation of existing
affordable rental housing and development of new affordable rental housing were top needs. Facilities projects including streets/sidewalks,
parks, and health care facilities are also highly ranked. Additional comments from citizens highlight the need for infrastructure and facilities
improvements including public parks.
Overall the need for, affordable housing, street and sidewalk improvements, parks improvements, accessibility and safety and public
infrastructure needs were particularly highlighted by the survey results. Economic Development needs were ranked lower overall than housing
or public facilities/infrastructure needs.
Full survey results can be found at the Appendix and in Kitsap County’s Consolidated Plan.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Table 4– Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort O
rder
Mode of Ou
treach
Target of Ou
treach
Summary of response/
attendance
Summary of commen
ts received
Summary of co
mments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
1 Internet
Outreach
Non-
targeted/br
oad
community
A community survey
was launched on
February 2025 and was
open until the end of
March. There were 610
respondents total 126
from Bremerton.
See Summary above. All comments
were accepted.
https://www.cognitoforms.com/KitsapCounty1/_20262030C
onPlanCommunityNeedsSurvey
2 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted/br
oad
community
A Legal Ad was
published in the Kitsap
Sun on May 1st, 2025
to announce a 15- day
comment period for
the 2026 City of
Bremerton Policy Plan
and 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan
Priorities. Information
and documents were
posted to the City's
Federal Grants page.
Subscribers of the City
of Bremerton news
flash.
no comments All comments
were accepted.
https://www.bremertonwa.gov/198/Federal-Grants---CDBG
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
3 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/br
oad
community
A Public Meeting to
receive public
testimony on the 2026
City of Bremerton
CDBG/HOME Policy
Plan and 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan
Priorities was held on
June 4, 2025, with the
Bremerton City
Council. This meeting
was held in person and
available online via
Zoom.
1. Comments were
made regarding past
CDBG funded projects
and expressed
concern that funds
were previously
awarded to for profit
development groups.
Staff addressed
comments during the
meeting and clarified
eligibility for prior
economic
development
projects. 2.
Comments were
made encouraging
funding for homeless
services and further
coordination with
community groups. 3.
A comment was
made encouraging
outreach beyond
electronic methods to
encourage folks to
participate who do
not own computers.
All comments
were accepted.
https://bremerton.vod.castus.tv/vod/?video=a5565cfd-
55e1-4e02-9b17-
8c17fc2fbec8&nav=programs%2FBremerton%20City%20Coun
cil
4 Internet
Outreach
Non
targeted
Grant Applications for
2026 CDBG and HOME
funds were made
available online on
June 17, 2025. All
subscribers of the
Kitsap County
Coordinated Grant
Application page and
the City CDBG page
were notified
electronically.
NA NA Coordinated Grant Application Process
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
5 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted
A Legal Ad was
published on
September 29, 2025
opening a 30-day
public comment period
on the 2026-2030
Consolidated Plan and
Year 1 Action Plan.
Documents were
posted to the Kitsap
County and City of
Bremerton websites
and electronic
notification was sent
to all subscribers.
Comment period runs
through October 30th
2025
All comments
will be
accepted.
6 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted
A Public Hearing to
receive public
testimony on the 2026-
2030 Consolidated
Plan and Year 1 Action
Plan will be held on
November 5th 2025
with the Bremerton
City Council
Comments will be
accepted
All comments
will be
accepted.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The Needs Assessment, combines information gathered through consultations with providers, data
available from HUD and the citizen participation process, to provide a story of the City’s need for
community development activity. Affordable housing, supportive housing, improvement and creation of
vital public facilities a public services are areas in which the City will need to grow to meet the increasing
demand. The Kitsap County Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment will include comprehensive
information, data, and analysis related to County-wide affordable housing, special needs housing,
homelessness and community development. There is an overwhelming need for more affordable
housing units county-wide, and data presented in the County’s larger plan will show that need.
The following section will address the City’s non-housing needs, including public facilities, infrastructure,
public services, and economic development projects.
The City in a joint community survey with Kitsap County received a total of 608 individual responses,
with 152 of those from Bremerton zip codes. In addition to the preservation and creation of affordable
housing units, survey results also showed a need and want for medical facilities and services, street and
sidewalk improvements, and the need for parks and recreation facilities to meet the demand of
Bremerton’s growing population. Most of the census block groups in the City meet HUD requirements
for low-moderate area projects, in that most areas of the City have a population which is more than 51%
low-moderate income.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
If the PJ will establish a preference for a HOME TBRA activity for persons with a specific category of disabilities (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness), describe their unmet need for housing and services needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2) (ii))
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.415, 91.215 (f)
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:
The City’s need for public facility improvements and infrastructure continues to grow as population and
the need for services also increases. Nonprofit organizations and units of local government do not have
the capacity or capital to address these types of improvements in their standard budget.
The City also has several community centers and homeless facilities serving homeless and special needs
populations and these facilities are also in need of improvements and repairs. Additionally the need for
City ADA accessible infrastructure including sidewalks, curb ramps, and City parks continues to be great.
How were these needs determined?
Kitsap County has an adopted Homeless and Crisis Housing response plan which provides a current
assessment of resources and an action plan which addresses needs, gaps, core strategies, and action
areas. Both were consulted in preparation of this Consolidated Plan. Needs were also determined using
the joint community needs survey.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:
The vision for the City's public infrastructure improvements are focused on promoting, managing, and
maintaining a safe, efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation and recreation which is
consistent with the City's overall vision and adequately serves anticipated growth. As the City's
population grows, so does the need for maintaining robust City services for the most vulnerable
residents. While the City's CDBG entitlement for Public Services is very small, CDBG capital funds have
the ability to assist non profit organizations with needed improvements to maintain and increase their
level of service. The City's community survey highlighted needs in the following areas specifically:
ADA Improvements to Streets and Sidewalks:
The development of sidewalks, shared use paths, and overall pedestrian facilities occurred as each
section of the City was constructed or reconstructed over the past 120 plus years. As portions of the City
were annexed from the County. Those facilities often reflect the standards at the time they were
constructed. As a result, there are many instances of facilities that do not meet current ADA standards.
Such obstructions range from no sidewalks, to narrow sidewalks, to utility pole incursions, damaged
sidewalks and ramps, fire hydrants and other street fixtures, signs, and traffic signals. Through its ADA
Transition Plan the City of Bremerton is committed to addressing the large number of physical barriers
to ADA access. An inventory was completed in 2016 and again in 2019. Conditions of curb ramps and
sidewalks vary widely and the need for removal of these barriers to accessibility is still great.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Medical Facilities and Shelters:
A Johns Hopkins report from February 2024 states that “Individuals living in Kitsap County…experience
significant barriers when seeking healthcare, including prohibitive costs, lengthy delays to see primary
care providers, inadequate insurance coverage, and reductions in levels of services in high need
subspecialty care.” The report details that Kitsap falls “below the state average for primary care
providers, physician assistants, obstetrical-gynecological physicians (OB/GYNs), mental healthcare
providers, dentists, and staffed inpatient hospital beds per 100,000 population.” The community survey
also highlighted an increased need for mental health services and facilities for folks transitioning from
medical care to supportive housing. The largest concentration of unsheltered homeless individuals live
in Bremerton and the surrounding area. The need for emergency shelter beds, low barrier shelters, and
permanent supportive housing remains high in Bremerton.
Parks and Recreation:
The community survey included several responses describing the need for “third spaces” especially for
Bremerton’s families. Infrastructure improvements including sidewalks, streets, and curb ramps often
make connections to schools, places of business and our City parks. In recent years efforts have been
made to upgrade City parks to be more ADA accessible. Parks and facilities upgrades in low-income
areas of Bremerton, especially improvements which remove barriers to ADA accessibility are a part of
the City’s overall priority to improve public safety, accessibility, and mobility. A City survey Parks-
Recreation-and-Open-Space-Plan-PDF done in 2019 showed that over 95% of respondents felt it was
very important to fund improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities, and 88% and 87%
respectively, said it was very important to improve maintenance/cleanliness and safety.
How were these needs determined?
These needs were determined through the City's Comprehensive Planning process. Needs were
evaluated and determined during the outreach and planning process for the Consolidated Plan,
including input from a community survey.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:
Most public service organizations in Kitsap County are located within the City of Bremerton. These
services include after school programs, shelters, job training programs, adult education classes,
childcare providers etc. Programs often operating on very tight budgets and look to outside funding
sources to help support their programs. Unfortunately, the City’s capacity to manage funding, reporting,
and contracting for such programs is severely limited. The community survey results showed the top
need overall in Bremerton to be the need for mental health services.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
How were these needs determined?
These needs were determined through the City's Comprehensive Planning process. Needs were
evaluated and determined during the outreach and planning process for the Consolidated Plan,
including input from a community survey.
Based on the needs analysis above, describe the State's needs in Colonias
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:
The City of Bremerton has the largest inventory of aging housing in the County. In the City of Bremerton
77.3% of housing units were built before 1980 and 22% were built in 1939 or earlier. In the City of
Bremerton rehabilitation of the aging housing stock is a high need. Over three-quarters of the housing
units were built before 1980, nearly one-quarter before WWII. Many of these housing units are solidly
built and are structurally sound but in need of energy efficiency improvements and upgrades to
preserve them for the long term.
The older age of Bremerton's housing stock, with an associated increased cost for maintenance, has an
impact on the conditions of housing particularly in comment deference of maintenance as homes
approach obsolescence in today's market for homeowners. The City has historically carried a high rental
to owner occupant rate approximately 60% of Bremerton residents rent to 42.5% buyers. Single family
owner units are no longer available at relatively low prices and demand is high. The rental market is
strong because of the transient nature of the community which creates an increased demand, especially
for more modern or better kept buildings. Rents tend to increase even for poorer buildings,
exacerbating the cost burden issue for low-income households. Landlords are often unable to make
costly repairs to their rental units thereby creating unsafe and a lower quality of housing for some low-
income households as well.
Older homes may also present health hazards due to their potential to contain lead-based paint and/or
asbestos, and knob and tube electrical wiring. Many of these older housing units require some degree of
work to bring them to current, acceptable building standards. Aging housing is also important in regards
to renter-occupied units. When renters occupy older housing, housing quality and occupant safety
concerns become more of an issue because many of the owners may not have much of an incentive to
invest time and money into maintenance and improvements. Thus, over time rental units begin to
deteriorate and suffer from deferred maintenance.
Geographic analysis shows that the concentration of older housing stock overlaps with a concentration
of low to moderate income families. Areas which have a greater than 51% concentration of low and
moderate income persons are located throughout the City but primarily in West Bremerton and some
locations in East Bremerton. Housing units built before 1978, also concentrated primarily in these
locations are more likely to contain lead-based paint and are more likely in need of major repair. Yet,
these houses are occupied by families least likely to have the financial means to correct either potential
lead hazards or to make all other needed repairs. The City's low/moderate Census Tracts are all in need
of reinvestment through owner and rental housing rehabilitation.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets - 91.410, 91.210(f)
Introduction
The City of Bremerton is 14,800 acres or approximately 23 square miles and is located at the geographic
center of the Puget Sound Region. It is only 11 miles across the water from Seattle and just 33 miles
northwest of Tacoma off State Hwy. 16. The Washington State Ferry System conveniently links
downtown Bremerton to downtown Seattle, providing unobstructed automobile access, and a unique
feature in comparison to other satellite cities around Seattle. State highways tie Bremerton and the
Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton (including the Bremerton National Airport), to Tacoma on the
South and to the Hood Canal bridge on the north. Puget Sound's link to the Olympic Peninsula.
Residents, visitors, and Bremerton-based businesses benefit from this unparalleled regional access as
well as the City's favorable size for operations and management. In fact, Bremerton is the largest
incorporated City in the West Sound, with a population of approximately 42,000 and has more jobs than
the combined markets of Gig Harbor and Silverdale.
Bremerton is regionally significant due to the deep water port, home to a State ferry terminal, public
marina and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard-the West Sound's largest employer. The City's major
employers include the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and St. Michaels Medical Center, formally Harrison
Medical Center. The subarea plan that the City has developed and related regulations and incentives
will ensure a smooth transition for both Harrison and for the Bremerton Community in the short term,
and economic revitalization in the longer term. Several projects and investments are currently
underway in the area that will work together to increase the Center's economic development potential.
The City has started a comprehensive study of the SR 303 (Warren/Wheaton) corridor. This study will
identify transportation options that will improve livability and attract investment to the area along the
corridor.
Based on the data provided, the City expects to focus CDBG funds on preserving and increasing
affordable housing for low and very low income households and investing in low/moderate income
neighborhoods as well as providing critical skills necessary for persons to maneuver through the
workforce. These critical workforce development programs are important for our community to provide
much needed economic opportunities. Many of the Housing and Urban Development tables have been
prepopulated by HUD with a default data set based on the most recent comparable data available. The
tables have been supplemented in some cases with alternative data sources and supporting information
to provide the clearest and most current picture of the environment in the City of Bremerton where the
data is available.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Economic Development Market Analysis
Business Activity
Business by Sector Number of
Workers Number of
Jobs Share of
Workers
%
Share of
Jobs
%
Jobs less
workers
%
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 109 4 1 0 -1
Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 1924 1699 17 15 -2
Construction 866 424 8 4 -4
Education and Health Care Services 2497 4035 22 35 13
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 662 694 6 6 0
Information 275 199 2 2 0
Manufacturing 662 694 6 6 0
Other Services 528 463 5 4 -1
Professional, Scientific, Management
Services 1034 986 9 9 0
Public Administration 0 0 0
Retail Trade 2037 1943 18 17 -1
Transportation and Warehousing 375 162 3 1 -2
Wholesale Trade 414 270 4 2 -2
Total 11383 11573 -- -- --
Table - Business Activity
Data
Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 17895
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 16795
Unemployment Rate 5.99
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 18.49
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.59
Table 5 - Labor Force
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business and
financial 4240
Farming, fisheries and forestry
occupations 740
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Service 2100
Sales and office 3530
Construction, extraction,
maintenance and repair 1485
Production, transportation and
material moving 1000
Table 6 – Occupations by Sector
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Travel Time
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 14185 70
30-59 Minutes 3964 20
60 or More Minutes 2061 10%
Total 20210 100%
Table 7 - Travel Time
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Education:
Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force
Less than high school graduate 505 105 680
High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 2,910 295 1,540
Some college or Associate's
degree 5,620 650 2,650
Bachelor's degree or higher 3,095 80 630
Table 8 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Educational Attainment by Age
Age
18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs
Less than 9th grade 65 145 140 175 120
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 395 190 210 430 135
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Age
18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs
High school graduate, GED, or
alternative 3200 2030 920 2220 1445
Some college, no degree 2335 2725 1715 2590 1660
Associate's degree 310 1380 665 995 555
Bachelor's degree 350 1990 925 1125 810
Graduate or professional degree 10 385 560 765 465
Table 9 - Educational Attainment by Age
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less than high school graduate 22306
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 30485
Some college or Associate's degree 36342
Bachelor's degree 103493
Graduate or professional degree 70369
Table 10 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Data Source: CPD Maps Report for Bremerton, WA
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within
your jurisdiction?
The City's share of jobs in relation to its geographical size (30 square miles), in comparison with the
County's size: 566 square miles, is representative of the City’s status as a metropolitan area. Also what is
not included in Table 45-Business Activity, is the large number of defense related jobs in Kitsap County.
Information from Naval Base Kitsap, 2014 numbers for employment were:
• 14,758 military (active duty)
• 24,758 (civilian contract employees)
The civilian work force includes many professional and management workers employed at Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.
Bremerton is included in the Kitsap County region covered by the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance
(KEDA), a public/private nonprofit partnership focused on attracting and retaining businesses in the
Kitsap region. Kitsap County ranks high in what KEDA calls essential economic development indicators.
These indicators include educational attainment and skilled workforce; development of intellectual
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
property; per capital economic output; and median household incomes. The Department of Defense has
contributed over $4 billion to the Kitsap County Regional Economy.
Kitsap has the advantage of multi-modal access to wider business markets (Seattle, Tacoma) - close
proximity to rail, deep water ports, airfields, and the interstate highway system with uncongested traffic
areas.
Kitsap is a recognized leader in several key regional economic indicators; maritime; military;
manufacturing; health care; technology; and tourism. Kitsap is also home to the most-dense
concentration of engineering talent in the Seattle region. The major business industries are as follows:
• Public Administration
• Education and Health Care Services
• Retail Trade
• Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations
• Professional, Scientific, Management Services
• Construction
• Manufacturing
• Services
Federal work comprises a significant portion of the economic activity in the county. Naval Base Kitsap
(civilian and military combined) employs 39,440 people followed by:
• St. Michael Medical Center 2,007 persons
• Central Kitsap School District 1,532 persons
• South Kitsap School District 1,372 persons
• Kitsap County 1,366 persons
Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:
Many types of occupations at most levels are currently in demand in Kitsap County. These
include Business and Financial Operations Occupations such as accountants and bookkeepers, Computer
and IT Related occupations , K-12 educational occupations, all levels of Health Related occupations such
as RN’s and Technician, as well as most types and level of skilled trades such as Electricians, HVAC
specialists and Plumbers.
Department of Defense Contractors continue to look for workers and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is
currently seeking skilled workers.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or
regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect
job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for
workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create.
The Harrison Medical Center was demolished in 2024 and it's services moved to the newly constructed
St. Michael's Medical Center in Silverdale. While this large medical facility and it's expansion are
certainly needed county wide, the move from Bremerton has changed a vital employment center of the
City. In response, the City recreated the Harrison Heights Subarea Plan which provides a vision for the
area's future use including housing and employment needs. The healthcare industry will continue to
grow, requiring additional healthcare workers. This demand has not decreased over the past five
years. Skilled trades continue to be in demand. Major employers in the City, report a lack of childcare as
a major barrier to employee retention and recruitment, along with affordable housing.
How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment
opportunities in the jurisdiction?
The areas of demand in Bremerton are jobs which often require "hard skills" related to defense work,
healthcare, and tech. Bremerton's downtown also relies on smaller businesses (retail, restaurants etc.)
to bolster the economy.
Integrating the needs of the City's small and mid-size employers into workforce development will be
critical to the growth and retention of these smaller companies. The City, the Chamber of Commerce,
Neighborhood Business Associations, and KEDA, and their economic development partners maintain
strong relationships with local industries to address their workforce issues, specifically how Bremerton's
future workers are prepared for careers in advanced technology.
Retaining and recruiting talent to replace retiring workers is always a challenge and will continue to be
for the next decade. Local groups and employers have initiated efforts to address workforce concerns in
the community.
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce
Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts
will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
• Olympic College (OC) launched the Corpsman/Medic to Practical Nurse Program in the Summer
of 2024
• OC launched the two Phlebotomy programs in 2024 - 25 school year.
• OC is currently accepting applications for its Surgical Technologist program for the 2025-26
school year.
• OC is planning proposals for the following programs:
o Radiologic Technology
o Diagnostic Medical Sonography
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• OC is planning proposals for the following new programs:
o Dental Hygiene
o Dental Assisting
o Paramedic
o Emergency Medical Technician
o Respiratory Therapy
• Olympic College is part of Air Washington, a consortium of community and technical colleges
providing aerospace workforce skills. Many of those skills cross over into other manufacturing
scenarios.
• Olympic College has several certificate programs supporting technology: Applications Server; CIS
Basic and CIS Core; Electronics; IT Project Management Essentials; Information Systems Security;
Open Source Systems; Software Application Development; Technical Design – Web Client Side
Development.
• Certificate offerings from Olympic College in skilled trades: Advanced Manufacturing
Composites, Composites Manufacturing Technology; Manufacturing Technology; Welding
Technology Proficiency and Welding Technology Specialization.
• Olympic also has certificate programs supporting professional services, business and retail.
• Olympic College recently added a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems.
• In collaboration with Western Washington University at Olympic College, the following degrees
are available in Kitsap County: Business Administration Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Policy
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Science Bachelor of Science, Human Services Bachelor of Arts,
and Elementary Teacher Education Bachelor of Arts and Certification.
• In partnership with Washington State University, Kitsap students can obtain a Bachelor of
Science in Mechanical Engineering from WSU.
• Many of the retired and separated military workforce remain in the area with a diverse and
skilled training background.
Olympic College has a workforce development division which serves as an umbrella for a number of
different services for diverse populations: Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents, Adult Education and
GED Preparation, Basic Food Employment and Training, the Career Center, Cooperative Education and
Internships, Technology Prep for high school students, English to Speakers of other languages, worker
retraining and work first.
Kitsap Community Resources has a long standing business development course for entrepreneurs. This
program has expanded in recent years to include a Spanish language course.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS)?
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated
with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that
impact economic growth.
The City of Bremerton is a member of Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). PSRC is a regional
organization which develops policies and coordinates decisions about regional growth, transportation,
and economic development planning. The Central Puget Sound Economic Development District Board a
board within PSRC is the governing board for the federally designed economic development district for
King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties. Its members include representatives from private business,
local governments, tribes and trade organizations. The board is responsible for development and
adoption of Amazing Place, the regions Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. This is a data
driven regional economic strategy that identifies leading sectors and the ways the region intends to
sustain economic development.
The strategy has three big goals: open economic opportunities to everyone; compete globally; and
sustain a high quality of life. Each of these goals is supported by specific strategies and initiatives to
sustain and grow jobs throughout the region, for all residents. Kitsap is also part of the Olympic
Consortium and Kitsap Economic Development Alliance is engaged in planning for economic growth in
Kitsap County.
Discussion
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated?
(include a definition of "concentration")
The City does not have a concentration of households with multiple housing problems geographically
however the City does have a large number of renters who are living in rental units which have multiple
housing problems. These households have housing problems such has substandard housing quarters,
high rental costs, multiple family members per dwelling unit, or landlords unwilling to fix errors needed
in the homes which can cause a hazard such as leaking roof, mold, or other scenarios. These households
often reach out to Code Enforcement to look for assistance in requiring the landlord to make these
repairs. The City does attempt in some situations to assist with its Weatherization and Minor Home
Repair program, but this program does not work in every scenario. Concentration is only defined by the
high percentage of renters at 60% and a subset of those renters, around 20% are those who are
experiencing these housing problems.
Another primary housing problem which affects City residents is housing cost burden. Concentration
would be defined as a Block Group or Groups where multiple housing problems exist and are 10% above
the overall number for the City. Almost all the block groups in the City where low-income households
are experiencing severe cost burden and substandard housing units. This issue is fairly broadly
distributed throughout the City and there is not one area where it is concentrated.
Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income
families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")
The City of Bremerton has an ethnically diverse community a large majority of these minorities are from
Guatemala or Mexico. There is no real area concentration of these households however a large number
of these households are below the Federal poverty level.
An area is considered to have a concentration of minority persons if the percentage of households in a
particular racial or ethnic minority group in a Block Group or Groups is at least 10 percentage points
higher than the percentage of that minority group for the MSA. There are no block groups with a racial
or ethnic minority concentration.
To determine if a concentration of low-income households exists, block groups that meet HUD's
definition of Low-Mod area are used. Low-mod areas are block groups that are primarily residential
where at least 51% of the residents are low-and moderate-income persons (have incomes below 80% of
the Area Median Income). All but one Block Group in the City meet the Low-Mod definition.
What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?
Areas with a concentration of low-income households within the City have "affordable housing" when
compared to other areas in Kitsap County. These areas are attracting first-time homebuyers and renters
looking or affordable options. However, more increasingly there is low supply and significant
competition for these units. The City has attracted investors who are looking to purchase homes for a
smaller cost, renovate them, and sell them for a higher cost.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
This makes competition difficult for first time homebuyers, or programs such as Community Frameworks
who are looking to do the same thing, but sell the home to an income qualified home buyer.
Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?
The City, as an older City has many community assets in these low income neighborhoods. The City's
park system which has many wonderful amenities available to its residents, as well as access to the
waterfront, improved sidewalks and curb ramps, access to services and transit, a great school district,
and many community partners who know the community and its needs well.
Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?
Housing affordability is a significant difficulty for our community. Housing prices in the area have spiked
while incomes remain about the same, leading to many families opting to share tightened spaces in
houses and apartments rather than allow their neighbors to become homeless. Opportunities for more
housing assistance, partnerships with immigrant assistance organizations, and participation in planning
and community groups. Additionally, the City's Low-Mod areas will benefit from investment of CDBG
Capital funds for both public facilities and infrastructure projects.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income
Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2)
Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and
moderate-income households and neighborhoods.
FCC maps of Washington State for 2017 indicate that 100% of the population have access to broadband
services at or above 25 Megabits per second (Mbps), although this does not match up with the actual
experiences of many residents. A substantial number of Washingtonians experience speeds below the
federal and state broadband standard of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.
Broadband wiring and connections exist in all areas of the City o Bremerton. Low-income households
living in multi-family rental housing have access, but affordability may be a barrier. The monthly
subscription cost for connection to broadband may go beyond what some low-income households can
afford. Low-income households living in single-family housing will most likely have access if located in an
urban area or rural area or existing homes with service. Low-income households living in single family
homes in some rural areas have very limited to now broadband connection. The number of people with
no broadband connection is unknown.
Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet
service provider serve the jurisdiction.
When measuring the digital divide in Washington, the affordability and availability of public broadband
must be taken into account. With this in mind, there are a total of 242 providers in the state. Although
this is the case, there are 338,000 people in the state without access to a wired connection capable of
25 Mbps download speeds. It should also be noted that there are 529,000 people who currently only
have access to one provider, making it impossible for them to switch. Another 103,000 people in
Washington have no wired internet provider at all where they live. There are several providers of
broadband in Kitsap County. There are several providers of broadband in Kitsap County. All urban areas
feature several choices of service providers. Comcast, Century Link, Astound, Xfinity, ViaSat and
HughesNet are the most common providers. In unincorporated areas of the county, KPUD provides an
increasingly popular community-owned option as well. KPUD strives to eliminate more underserved
areas each year. When it comes to broadband speeds, 94.6% of Washingtonians have access to wired
broadband 25 Mbps or faster, while 92.8% have access to broadband 100 Mbps or faster. On the other
hand, only 25.8% of Washingtonians have access to 1-gigabit broadband. The government of
Washington is working to improve its broadband infrastructure. The Community Economic Revitalization
Board has been actively trying to improve local economic development in communities. The Washington
State Broadband Project has been awarded over $7 million in federal grants since the year 2011 for the
Washington State Initiative. An additional $166 million was awarded to broadband initiatives to further
connections throughout the state.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.
The City of Bremerton, as a component of Kitsap County has an adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan that was
prepared by Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management and last updated in 2024. This plan
identifies winter storms, flooding, and earthquakes as the most common hazards historically. Flooding is
the most common hazard occurring in the City of Bremerton. Heavy, prolonged rain in the fall, winter, or
spring months often results in saturated ground and high stream flows. Due to ground saturation, some
City of Bremerton businesses and homes located in low-lying areas, particularly around Dyes and Sinclair
inlets could flood during prolonged periods of rain. Wind-driven tidal flooding is also possible along
inland waters. Flooding does occur to some extent in particular areas of the City annually, especially in
floodplain zones of streams. Evergreen Rotary Park is occasionally faced with flooding due to rising
waters but additional due to poor storm water drainage. Beaches, particularly along the shoreline, are
often affected by flood tides compounded by heavy rainfall and high tides. More than any other natural
hazard, flooding represents the single biggest repetitive event that has a damaging effect to City
property and resources. The City does have a few urban streams which are subject to flooding annually
due to drainage overload during large or intense storm events. The City is also home to the Gorst
Watershed and Casad dam which Casad Dam is located approximately 10 miles from downtown
Bremerton in a protected watershed. The dam is a concrete arch structure completed in 1957. It is
owned and operated by the City of Bremerton to impound the Union River for the city's drinking water
supply. Downstream of Casad Dam is McKenna Falls, which provides a natural barrier to migratory fish.
The city provides an environmental benefit by protecting water quality and ensuring downstream fish
flows. When full, the Union River Reservoir holds over a billion gallons of water and supplies about 60%
of the city's drinking water during years with normal precipitation. Casad Dam is one of Bremerton's
most remarkable and valuable investments. Storms have caused major damage to portions of the City in
the past particularly when accompanied by high winds. The main effects of local storms include
disruption of electrical power, accidents and transportation problems, flooding and landslides and
damage to buildings. Climate change could negatively affect the City if it causes more frequent and
severe storms and if there is a rise in sea level. Fires, on a minimal scale have also adversely affected the
City with residents restricted from going outside and participating in activities due to poor air quality.
Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income
households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods.
While the City does not have locations of the City with high concentrations of low/moderate income
housing, and the majority of affordable housing is not located along the shoreline, so the risk of storm
surge is low. However, the City is home to PSNS, which houses a large number of workers and contains
barracks for housing which is located right on the water.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview
The City of Bremerton's Five-Year Strategic Plan outlines the ways Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used to address community needs in the City. The City's information
regarding the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds will be detailed in the Kitsap County
Consortium Plan as Kitsap County Serves as the Participating Jurisdiction and thus is responsible for
implementation of HOME funds. Because CDBG funds are very limited, the City has made a concerted
effort to target the funds to specific priorities as necessary but makes sure to not target in a way to
make it difficult to expend funds in a timely manner. This plan includes objectives and proposed
accomplishments and outcomes. The projects funded each year, and included in the Action Plan, must
address the priorities of the Strategic Plan. The outcomes are based on the funding we estimate to be
available for the five-year period. Funding for HUD is determined by Congress annually and the
allocation of CDBG and HOME funds is based on a formula. If funding changes during the five-year
period Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton may amend the output goals accordingly. The overall
goal of the CDBG and HOME programs are to provide decent housing, suitable living environments and
economic opportunities. Evaluation and analysis of the needs in our community have resulted in a
decision to focus on several areas:
Affordable Housing - Housing supply and affordability continues to be a major problem countywide.
New construction of rental units for low-income households, especially supportive housing for special
needs populations is needed. Preservation of existing income-restricted rental units is also a high
priority. Homebuyer assistance is also needed to enable low/moderate income households to step into
homeownership but will not be considered a high priority for City of Bremerton funding. New
construction of homeownership housing will also not be a high priority for the City at this time but still
remains eligible.
Public Facilities and Infrastructure-The City of Bremerton will fund community development needs such
as parks, shelters, community centers, transportation facilities, infrastructure projects and public
facilities. The City will place higher priority on public facilities and infrastructure projects linked to
affordable housing, provision of high priority public services, or projects located in HUD designated Low-
Mod Areas.
Economic Development-Expanding economic opportunities for lower income residents is a medium
priority, including programs which provide assistance or training to micro-enterprises.
Reducing homelessness is an overall high priority for Bremerton as a City. Projects addressing
homelessness are eligible for funding from local Housing and Homeless Grant Program and Affordable
Housing Grant Program funds among other State and Federal funds. CDBG funds are limited and
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
therefore prioritized for other housing and community development needs of low-income households
and communities. High priority housing and public facilities projects serving homeless populations may
be considered for CDBG funding if the project addresses strategies outlined in the Kitsap Homeless Crisis
Response and Housing Plan-2019 Update and the project is a high priority for the County.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-10 Geographic Priorities - 91.415, 91.215(a)(1)
General Allocation Priorities
Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the state
The City will not be targeting its funds in a geographic area in this Consolidated Plan cycle. When
carrying out LMA projects, the City will ensure that the service area is within a Low/Mod area.
The City will anticipate receiving 39% of Kitsap County HOME funds to carry out projects within the City
limits.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.415, 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs
Table 11 – Priority Needs Summary
Name Population Geographic Areas Priority Level Associated Goals
Affordable
Housing
veterans
Individuals
Moderate
Unaccompanied Youth
Public Housing
Residents
Low
Chronic Homelessness
Elderly
Families with Children
Extremely Low
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Frail Elderly
Chronic Substance
Abuse
Mentally Ill
Families with Children
Large Families
Elderly
Victims of Domestic
Violence
High Preserve and Increase
Affordable Housing
Public Facilities
Non-housing
Community
Development
High Provide essential public
facilities/infrastructure
Economic
Development
Extremely Low
Non-housing
Community
Development
Moderate
Low
High Increase Economic
Opportunity
Public Services Moderate
Non-housing
Community
Low
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Development
Mentally Ill
Elderly
veterans
Chronic Homelessness
Families with Children
Chronic Substance
Abuse
Large Families
Extremely Low
Victims of Domestic
Violence
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Low
Public Housing
Residents
Families with Children
Individuals
Unaccompanied Youth
Narrative (Optional)
These priority needs have been determined from the needs assessment, market analysis and community
input and will be addressed annually by the Bremerton City Council.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.420(b), 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City as an entitlement community receives a direct allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from HUD. The City of
Bremerton along with Kitsap County together form a consortium for HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds from HUD. The City as its own
entitlement community receives a direct allocation of CDBG funds from HUD and is responsible for administration of our own funds. The
amounts included below are estimated and based on the FY 2025 formula allocation. Amounts over the previous 5-year period varied from year
to year and averaged about $400,000 for CDBG and $180,000 for HOME. Actual amounts depend on Congressional appropriations each year.
Program income is generated from loans made with CDBG and HOME funds. All Program Income is returned to the City and is then re-allocated
to projects and included in the annual Action Plan. The amount varies from year to year and is estimated for years 2-5 in the table below.
Anticipated Resources
Program Source of
Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 300000 5000 130409 435409 915000
The first year of the Con Plan will have
prior year resources, rolling funds are
not anticipated for the remainder of
the Con Plan for years 2, 3, and 4.
Table 12 - Anticipated Resources
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how
matching requirements will be satisfied
The City annually looks for projects which leverage other resources and expand the scope of work which can be done in the City. These Federal
funds leverage private, state and local funds. While the City does not often fund large scale Capital projects but occasionally when they do it
often is a small component of the agencies overall budget, but a critical component because it shows a commitment of local support and
something that project sponsors use to demonstrate to other funders local support for the project. At the time of project application, all
applicants for CDBG funds must submit a Sources of Funding form to indicate what other funding is expected to be used for the project. This
information is updated when a written agreement is executed.
The City also contributes funding from its General fund to fund important projects in our community such as Weatherization and Minor Home
Repair and Rental Assistance.
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the state that may be used to address the needs identified
in the plan
The City does not have publically owned land within the jurisdiction that will be used to address needs in the Consolidated Plan
Discussion
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure - 91.415, 91.215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan
including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
Bremerton Housing
Authority
PHA Public Housing Jurisdiction
Kitsap Mental Health
Services
Regional organization Non-homeless special
needs
Rental
Jurisdiction
KITSAP COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
Non-profit
organizations
Homelessness
Rental
Jurisdiction
City of Bremerton
Department of
Community
Development
Government Planning Jurisdiction
Table 13 - Institutional Delivery Structure
Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System
The City of Bremerton is the hub of most service organizations in the County. There is a wide variety of
non-profit and government agencies working together to address our community's needs. The City is a
participating agency in the Continuum of Care Coalition (Housing and Homelessness Coalition) with over
40 participating organizations. These organizations include government, and non-profit sectors,
foundations and the faith-based community. Kitsap County has fully implemented HMIS and conducts
an annual Point in Time Count. The Homeless Housing Plan was updated in 2019, and work is underway
with community partners to implement action steps detailed in the plan. Kitsap County also
implemented the 1/10th of 1% tax for mental and behavioral health. This funding is allocated through
an annual grant process to government and non-profit organizations implementing programs serving
individuals and families impacted by mental and behavioral health issues.
Through an online coordinated application process each year the City's HOME funds along with
Homeless Housing Grant Funds and Affordable Housing Grant funds are awarded. The City conducts its
own process for CDBG funds.
The City of Bremerton, like many other locations in the Country are experiencing an affordable housing
crisis. There is a significant and growing need for development of new affordable housing units. The City
is experiencing many constraints including:
• Limited number of organizations, including CHDO's with the capacity to successfully develop
new units at scale in the City;
• Insufficient amount of low-cost capital to build rent-restricted housing;
• Availability of land and restrictive regulations which put pressure on development costs;
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Rising construction material and labor costs; and
• Market feasibility-for development to occur, rents and prices need to be high enough to offset
the costs of land, construction and development.
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services
Homelessness Prevention
Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to
Homeless
Targeted to People
with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X
Legal Assistance X
Mortgage Assistance X
Rental Assistance X
Utilities Assistance X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X
Mobile Clinics X
Other Street Outreach Services X x
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X
Child Care X
Education X
Employment and Employment
Training X
Healthcare X
HIV/AIDS X
Life Skills X
Mental Health Counseling X
Transportation X
Other
Table 14 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed
above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
The City of Bremerton, as the largest City in Kitsap County, has the largest number of service providers.
The City's service providers participate in Kitsap Connect which had the goal of helping severely
vulnerable residents reduce their reliance on costly emergency services which saves money, public
resources and ultimately people's lives. Throughout the years of participating in Kitsap Connect clients
have taken fewer trips to the emergency room and spent less time in the hospital. There has also been a
marked reduction in arrests and nights in jail. People are better connected with primary medical care,
mental health services and treatment programs. Many of those once sleeping in shelter or on the
streets have found a place and remain in stable housing.
Kitsap Community Resources through the Housing Solutions Center has navigators who work directly
with clients who are needing assistance in navigating the systems of resources in the community. These
navigators are able to provide a one stop 'shop' for people needing assistance, so they do not have to go
to many different locations to get assistance.
The City and County also partners with Bremerton Housing Authority and their Housing Navigator
position. Funding for this position was provided through HOME-ARP funds.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population
and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed
above
The strength of the Kitsap homeless crisis response system is both from the experienced service
providers and in the leadership from elected officials and social service providers throughout the Kitsap
Housing and Homelessness Coalition. Kitsap's coordinated entry system, the Housing Solutions Center, is
recognized as one of the best programs of its kind in the state. Other strengths include accurate data
collection through the Kitsap Homeless Management Information System and data sharing between
organizations, with periodic analysis and reports being generated.
Despite great improvements in provision of housing and services to people experiencing homelessness,
and improved capacity over the last 10 years, specific barriers and gaps to our community's capacity to
assist all people who are experiencing homelessness to be identified. These barriers and gaps are the
underlying causes of Kitsap's inability to meet the needs of all homeless residents at this time. They
include:
• Insufficient funding
• Increased demand
• Limited capacity-both in housing stock and services, and in providers' ability to expand service
provision.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The following needs and gaps in homeless housing and resources have been identified:
• Create additional units of emergency shelter for single men, men with children, couples and
large families;
• Implement discharge planning and increase housing and services for homeless individuals
entering the community from jails, correctional facilities, foster care, hospitals, and mental
institutions, and who are chronically unsheltered;
• Encourage development of more affordable housing;
• Add low-barrier shelter and supportive housing units;
• Low barrier shelter beds (for chronically unsheltered individuals);
• Additional units of Permanent Supportive Housing;
• Coordination of case management both between homeless providers and among other systems
of care;
• Cross-sector leadership;
• Citizen outreach and communication.
The 2019 Kitsap Homeless Crisis Response and Housing Plan includes additional details about the needs
and gaps in the current homeless response system.
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and
service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs
The 2019 Kitsap Homeless Crisis Response and Housing Plan includes a strategic plan, comprising five
goals with supporting strategies and action steps. Indicators of success are included for each goal.
The overall goal of the Plan is to work together as a community to make homelessness a rare, brief, and
one-time occurrence in Kitsap County through an efficient and effective homeless response system.
1. Make homelessness rare (prevention strategies)
2. Make homelessness brief (Crisis response strategies)
3. Make homelessness one-time (ensure long-term housing stability strategies)
4. Continuously improve the homeless response system (increase capacity and efficiency
strategies)
5. Expand community engagement (leadership, planning and communication strategies)
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-45 Goals - 91.415, 91.215(a)(4)
Goals Summary Information
Table 15 – Goals Summary
Goal Category Geograp
hic Area Needs Addressed Funding
Preserve and Increase Affordable
Housing Affordable Housing Affordable
Housing CDBG : $250,000
Start Year: 2026
End
Year: 20
30
Outcome:
Affordability
Objective:
Create suitable living
environments
Description:
Preserving and increasing affordable housing units through rehabilitation of existing units,
supporting new construction through acquisition or site improvements.
Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity UoM
Rental units rehabilitated 10 Household Housing Unit
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 10 Household Housing Unit
Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 10 Households Assisted
Housing for Homeless added 20 Household Housing Unit
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Provide essential public
facilities/infrastructure
Homeless
Non-Housing Community
Development
Public Facilities CDBG : $500,000
Start Year: 2026
End
Year: 20
30
Outcome:
Availability/access
ibility
Objective:
Create suitable living
environments
Description:
Provide upgrades to public facilities and infrastructure to improve
accessibility/availability. Projects can include improvements to City parks, sidewalks and
streets, and community centers. Public facilities upgrades to also includes improvements
to homeless shelters, DV shelters, and facilities for special needs populations.
Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity UoM
Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 50,000 Persons
Assisted
Increase Economic Opportunity Non-Housing Community
Development Economic
Development CDBG : $250,000
Start Year: 2026
End
Year: 20
30
Outcome:
Availability/access
ibility
Objective:
Create economic
opportunities
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Description:
Increase economic opportunity through programs which support and educate low-mod
income entrepreneurs/small business owners.
Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity UoM
Businesses assisted 50 Businesses Assisted
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide
affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)
Details are included in the Kitsap County Consolidated Plan: Over the five-year plan period HOME funds will be used to fund
affordable housing projects for households below 80% AMI. The HOME Consortium, which includes Kitsap County and the City of
Bremerton, has a goal of providing households with incomes between 60%-80% AMI down-payment assistance to acquire 25 homes.
Additionally, the Consortium plans to fund the creation of 40 new units of rental housing serving households at or below 60% AMI.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards - 91.415, 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards
All housing funded with CDBG constructed before 1978 must comply with lead-based paint regulations
at 24 CFR Part 35. The purpose of the regulation is to identify and address lead-based paint hazards
before children are exposed to lead. All housing projects are required to complete the Lead Safe Housing
Requirements Screening Worksheet. The worksheet is used to determine if the project is Exempt or if
additional follow-up is required. The City of Bremerton has specific policies and procedures in place for
lead disclosure, lead evaluation, and assessment and lead safe work practices.
The potential for lead is also evaluated during the environmental review of projects funded with CDBG,
including non-housing projects. Projects where lead is suspected are required to have a risk assessment
performed and a written report with recommendations for action completed. The City also funds
weatherization and minor home repair program and within the uses of these funds there is an incentive
to assess lead-based paint hazard risks and abate as needed. Anyone who moves into a home funded all
or in part by federal dollars, or who is certified for Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance is provided
with the lead hazard information pamphlet prescribed by HUD. Properties housing tenants assisted by
the Housing Choice Voucher program, and Shelter Plus Care units are inspected annually, and the
inspection checklist includes a visual assessment for signs of lead-based paint.
How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?:
The extent of lead poisoning is not exactly known, since not all children are tested. For the time period
2019-2023 there were approximately 88,039 children under the age of 72 months in Kitsap County. Of
those, 3,080 were tested for lead and 28 had elevated blood lead levels. Due to low lead testing rates in
Washington (3-7%), and varying testing practices from health care providers, the results reported may
over- or underestimate the true rate of childhood lead poisoning.
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?:
The City of Bremerton has policies and procedures that follow Lead Safe Housing Rules. All
housing funded with CDBG and HOME funds must follow these requirements. Kitsap
Community Resource's Weatherization and Minor Home Repair program are trained in lead
safe work practices. KCR has certified lead inspector/risk assessors, and they test all pre 1978
homes with an XRF lead machine.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy - 91.415, 91.215(j)
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families
Although the City doesn't have a specific and stated anti-poverty strategy for reducing the number of
poverty-level families, the City through its various departments, the Mayor’s office, the City Council, the
faith-based community, local business and other governmental entities work together to address
poverty in the community. Throughout the City there are a number of programs which serve low-
income individuals and families. Some programs are targeted to specific populations such as the elderly,
disabled, veterans, homeless, etc. In addition to these programs, services and initiatives the City has a
number of programs aimed at helping students finish high school and engage in post-secondary
education through Olympic College or through workplace apprentice programs.
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this
affordable housing plan
The City will continue to use its funds to improve the local community. Through increasing affordable
housing, or microenterprise assistance programs, or infrastructure development and programs which
create jobs. CDBG will also be used for high priority facility and infrastructure needs for low-income
households and neighborhoods. The City's HOME funding will be used to create and preserve affordable
housing to promote housing stability so families can work towards improving their incomes and escape
poverty.
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-80 Monitoring - 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities
carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with
requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the
comprehensive planning requirements
Monitoring eligibility, performance, compliance, regulations and accomplishments, as well as tracking
financial data are the primary responsibilities of the lead agency, the City of Bremerton Community
Development Block Grant Program. The County is the leading agency for the implementation of the
City's HOME funds. The City has established clear policies and procedures governing the oversight and
monitoring of all organizations that receive funds.
Each organization must sign a written agreement with the City which outlines roles and obligations of
the City and contract agency and lays out the framework for the monitoring requirements. All contracts
contain timelines and a scope of work to promote timeliness of expenditures and compliance with
specific goals and requirements. The CDBG administrator is responsible for clearly conveying the
requirements described in the agreement to the contract agency. Throughout the year, organizations
are responsible for submitting quarterly performance reports, and each request for reimbursement
must be accompanied by appropriate back-up documentation. Questions of capacity and expertise are
reviewed through this process, and supported where necessary by technical assistance, resource
referral, or guidance. Information collected throughout the year is used to provide direction for on-site
monitoring at least once a year. Quarterly reports are used to determine funding eligibility and
timeliness of expenditures. During the program year, each organization with an open contract will
undergo a full audit of project and program records related to grant performance and fiscal
accountability by the City of Bremerton Community Block Grant Administrator. The purpose of the
review is to assess performance against the agreement, and to verify all federal, state, and local
regulations are satisfied. Where required, monitoring for capital projects in a period of affordability is
also performed on site. Housing Inspections are performed consistent with HUD requirements by
qualified inspectors and reviewed or completed by the Block Grant Administrator. Each on-site
monitoring follows specific timeline for completing tasks, are written to each contract organization.
Organizations are monitored in a timely manner for compliance with these written requests and given
assistance or guidance where necessary
Consolidated Plan BREMERTON 53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Appendix
Community Survey Results
TOTAL
Public Service Needs 8486 73%11550
Mental Health Services 638 83%770 Mental Health Services 638
Health (Medical / Dental) Services 621 81%770 Health (Medical / Dental) Services 621
Fair Housing Services 585 76%770 Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing 619
Services for Homeless Persons 583 76%770 Street and Sidewalk Improvements 612
Services for Persons with Disabilities 575 75%770 Health Care Facilities (Including Dental)601
Substance Abuse Services 572 74%770 Develop new Affordable Housing 601
Transportation Services 570 74%770 Rehabilitation of Existing Affordable Housing 598
Senior Services 564 73%770 Develop new Affordable Housing 593
Services for Abused and Neglected Children 561 73%770 Fair Housing Services 585
Services for Victims of Domestic Violence 560 73%770 Services for Homeless Persons 583
Food Assistance 559 73%770 Services for Persons with Disabilities 575
Youth Services 555 72%770 Parks and Recreation Facilities 575
Crime Awareness / Prevention 547 71%770 Food Bank 573
Child Care Services 527 68%770 Substance Abuse Services 572
Employment Training 469 61%770 Transportation Services 570
Homeless Shelter 570
Public Facilities 5483 71%7700 Senior Services 564
Health Care Facilities (Including Dental)601 78%770 Home Purchase / Down Payment Assistance 564
Parks and Recreation Facilities 575 75%770 Services for Abused and Neglected Children 561
Food Bank 573 74%770 Services for Victims of Domestic Violence 560
Homeless Shelter 570 74%770 Food Assistance 559
Child Care Centers 553 72%770 Street Lighting 558
Youth Center 546 71%770 Parks 556
Disabled Access to Public Facilities 533 69%770 Youth Services 555
Community Center 532 69%770 Weatherization & Energy Efficiency Improvements 555
Senior Center 517 67%770 Child Care Centers 553
Service Center 483 63%770 Home Repair and Rehabilitation 549
Rental Housing Needs 3281 71%4620 Crime Awareness / Prevention 547
Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing 619 80%770 Youth Center 546
Develop new Affordable Housing 601 78%770 Accessibility / Safety for Disabled Persons 540
Rehabilitation of Existing Affordable Housing 598 78%770 Slum / Blight Removal 534
Weatherization & Energy Efficiency Improvements 555 72%770 Disabled Access to Public Facilities 533
Modification of Units for Persons with Disabilities 502 65%770 Community Center 532
Lead Based Paint Screening / Abatement 406 53%770 Water / Sewer Improvements 532
Weatherization & Energy Efficiency Improvements 531
Public Improvements 4278 69%6160 Rehabilitation of Commercial / Industrial Buildings 531
Street and Sidewalk Improvements 612 79%770 Child Care Services 527
Street Lighting 558 72%770 Modification of Units for Persons with Disabilities 519
Parks 556 72%770 Senior Center 517
Accessibility / Safety for Disabled Persons 540 70%770 Modification of Units for Persons with Disabilities 502
Slum / Blight Removal 534 69%770 Service Center 483
Water / Sewer Improvements 532 69%770 Parking Improvements 473
Parking Improvements 473 61%770 Beautification / Enhanced Public Space 473
Beautification / Enhanced Public Space 473 61%770 Employment Training 469
Microenterprise Assistance 460
Homeowner Housing Needs 3166 69%4620 Direct Financial Assistance to Businesses 454
Develop new Affordable Housing 593 77%770 Technical Assistance to for Profit Businesses 432
Home Purchase / Down Payment Assistance 564 73%770 Lead Based Paint Screening / Abatement 410
Home Repair and Rehabilitation 549 71%770 Lead Based Paint Screening / Abatement 406
Weatherization & Energy Efficiency Improvements 531 69%770
Modification of Units for Persons with Disabilities 519 67%770
Lead Based Paint Screening / Abatement 410 53%770
Economic Development Activities 1877 61%3080
Rehabilitation of Commercial / Industrial Buildings 531 69%770
Microenterprise Assistance 460 60%770
Direct Financial Assistance to Businesses 454 59%770
Technical Assistance to for Profit Businesses 432 56%770
Results from Bremerton Zip Codes Ranked by Category
Survey Comments - Bremerton
Is there anything else about Community Needs you'd like to share?
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GET RID OF THE 800 BILLION PARKING LOTS AND JUST BUILD A PARKING GARAGE THAT
THE COMMUTERS CAN USE. CHARGE A NOMINAL FEE PER DAY TO USE. WE DO NOT NEED 800,000 PARKING LOTS.
Needs to be place for people to have tents if there is no place to keep people every hour of the dAy
We need more services & funds dedicated or allocated to our drug addiction pandemic that is prevalent in the US as a
whole, in each state & definitely in Kitsap County. We don't have enough facilities & professionals to help in this dire
time of need. There needs to be more Detox facilities & rehab centers. If we payed more attention to this, we would
have so much more clarification & direction for the homelessness that is growing in this county. I have also heard that
Seattle Law Enforcement has been giving homeless citizens free ferry tickets to go "visit" Bremerton since it is free to
Parking is a disaster and safety in the downtown area. Also, affordable housing does not mean renting to start at
$1700/month or buying at over $350k.
Speed limits are unrealistic. Not every road should be at a school zone speed.
Community liasons to bridge the gap between individual needs and services avaliable
Rent caps MUST be a central focus and priority. There is no reason that someone making $25 an hour shouldn't be
able to afford a small 1 bedroom apartment and sustain themselves (meaning be able to save some money every
month while also affording all other bills) with a sense of dignity.
Finding the right balance between use-based zoning and density-based zoning is crucial at this time. Achieving
sustainable urban development depends on striking a balance between density and land use regulations. A combined
approach, incorporating aspects of both zoning methods, can prove effective. Encouraging mixed-use development in
higher-density areas allows for a dynamic mix of housing, commercial, and recreational spaces, which enhances
walkability and minimizes the need for lengthy commutes. Meanwhile, use-based zoning remains valuable in
maintaining proper separation between incompatible land uses, such as residential and industrial areas. Housing,
food, and medical/dental care are the top priorities as they represent fundamental human needs. However, it is also
essential to address the full spectrum of housing solutions, ranging from homelessness to homeownership. By doing
so, we can create pathways that not only provide stability but also help individuals build generational wealth, which
has been shown to play a key role in fostering sustainable local economies. Down payment assistance (DPA) is a great
tool to use to create affordable homeownership opportunities, because it provides entrance to homeownership with
dignity and with a highly efficient/effective use of public resources. Homebuyers assisted with DPA are "anonymous",
without the stigma of receiving "assistance." The DPA can be used to purchase homes from market sellers, or through
community housing programs. DPA is eventually repaid with interest and used in perpetuity to create affordable
homeownership opportunities, while creating affordability for buyers by reducing monthly housing costs . It is an
extremely "soft" form of public subsidy since those using DPA must still qualify for first mortgages for the bulk of their
purchase price and evenutally pay back the dpa with interest. Really all they are getting is the ability to defer payment
on a portion of their financing, and to access a below-market interest rate.This small hand up makes a huge difference
in someone's quest to become a wealth-building homeowner.
There is a need for new construction of affordable housing for homeownership. If cities within Kitsap County or Kitsap
County itself has free or discounted land to offer, it should make that known to area affordable housing organizations,
Just that really many of the core issues that make downtown challenging there are already laws on the books to solve,
they just aren't being enforced. Not sure if it's a resourcing issue with BPD or culture or leadership or something else.
Downtown in awesome we need to keep investing in it, make it a destination. Has a great comedy, music, karaoke and
gaming scene that punches above its weight. But there are websites for "what to do in Seattle" that say to take the ferry
to Bainbridge but leave out Bremerton [because of the homeless and filth].
Get the street people off the streets. Drug and alcohol centers
lower crime
I believe there are many rental units and possibly old homes that have issues with buildup of minerals or degradation
of old pipes. This causes issues with potable water quality and is just generally gross. I think this may be solved by
imposing standards on landlords for living conditions. These standards could include things like proper egress
(windows not painted shut), mold/pest tests and remediation, air quality tests, etc.
the Navy needs to step up and provide dedicated funding to Bremerton. They pay no property tax yet demand
affordable housing for servicemembers, transportation upgrades paid by the poorest city in Kitsap County
Facilities that offer drop in enrichment activities for children in the evenings/weekends so parents can take a break
and reset their brains for an hour or so.
Lighting. and stop signs
Affordable housing and down payment assistance is a huge need to keep Bremerton residents here and not priced out.
Better sidewalks along Trenton road near Mountain View Middle School so that kids can safely distance themselves
from traffic
Encourage developers to stop making so many new apartments, which are robbing us of the beauty that Bremerton
has.
Permits need to be easier to get
Help seniors with their utilities and housing.
I'm upset that companies/city gov. are building "affordable" homes into crammed spaces, only to find that these
houses are just as expensive as the houses that currently exist. These homes don't have the current residents in mind
who struggle to find affordable housing, but cater to bring in people from out of state. I'd rather see old dilapidated
houses/builldings be torn down and remade than developing and cutting down forested areas.
As a working family, with hopes in buying a home someday- Affordable housing and childcare are at the top of my list
for community needs
sidewalks and crosswalks in Bremerton
The lack of safe walking is forcing people to do unsafe things like running across 303 into traffic because there are no
crosswalks. I’m thinking of the whole area near Walmart where people are forced to walk along the edge of the road
and the crosswalks are very far apart . There are many places that it is unsafe to cross streets because there are no
stop signs or crosswalks and often you can’t even see the oncoming traffic
For example the intersection of Callahan and Wheaton has no stop sign for Wheaton and no crosswalk and you can’t
see what’s coming around the corner on Wheaton and traffic goes very fast so there is no way to cross Wheaton safely
More senior neighborhoods to buy houses not just lease
Na
Transparancy
Make renting costs minimal. We should not be lining the pockets of millionaire CEOS. Make hosuing affordable,
families should be able to buy a house.
Remove the homeless and their cars
Cleaning up the homeless encampments and fighting shoplifting by the homeless needs to be top priority.
Expand the sewer to ilahee in bremerton. Stop cutting down the street trees it goes agains the development plan. Get
full ferry service restored to Bremerton. Add more vanpool vehicles
More trees in Bremerton. They cool the city, calm traffic and help the environment. We also need safer streets with
fully protected lanes for biking/wheels.
We really need our entire city/community areas to be accessible to all. Making walkable streets and improvements in
all areas would help us as well
Our bipoc communities deserve as much funding as the ones where wealthy white people live.
With all of the new housing being built, I don't see any commensurate improvements in roads and traffic flow. There
are going to be MANY more cars on the roads all over the County, especially in Bremerton and Silverdale. Where are
the road enhancements to handle all of the additional vehicles? You can't increase the population of people and cars
without considering the current capacity of the roads.
While Kitsap Transit does a great job, improvments can be made, especially weekend services. Those who do not work
a 9-5 weekday schedule are typically even more dependent in public transit.
Without adequate community based health care and basic community security (police response and crime
prevention) individuals suffer in ways that undermine the economic security of the entire county
Looks like the City needs to stay in their own lane and others deal with most of these "needs". The homeowners here
need a break from the horrific property taxes, not to mention ALL the other taxes thrown at us every single time
someone dreams up a new "program".
Our youth have little to do with skate land gone and one bowling alley left. At least bring more inexpensive things for
kids and teens to enjoy and skating was fun for 3 generations so it would be ideal
Services should be coordinated and data is shared between services. Success should be defined and over site by
elected officials should be established.
Greater law enforcement presence
We have a desperate need for expanded transit. Transit to communities to the north Abner south is abysmal/
nonexistent.
More multimodal streets. Bike, scooter, walking. Help us get around without cars
Reestablish collecting indigent and drug or alcohol addled people. Closing down drug houses.
Assist homeowners/landlords with removing trash/dead vehicles/junk from their property, or enforce existing
ordnances about same.
Rent is to expensive. Seniors are on waiting lists to long. My mothers plumbing took three years to be looked at. People
not very knowledgeable.
Reduce open air homeless encampments
We need to significantly reduce the cost of rent and housing.
Power needs to be underground in the city limits. It’s a safety hazard with the out dated methods used. I shouldn’t be
seeing drug deals and people smoking crack on park avenue between 6th and 11th, especially with that area being
frequented by children.
Infrastructure doesn’t accommodate the volume of people traversing around the shipyard
Increased use of mixed-use zoning to increase walkable neighborhoods
Please have the money go towards the underserved and families.
It would be great to have the unhoused in a shelter - not just when it's cold but all of the time. The unhoused leave
trash and shopping carts under the highway 3 overpass at Kitsap Way.
Affordable housing
Remove bike lanes, They are not being used.
People with traumatic brain injuries are underrepresented.
fix traffic congestion specifically in Gorst area
Affordable rent control. People like my families rent keeps going up and there isnt and hasnt been much upgraded to
our house. Slumlords. They need to be dealt with. Our house is falling apart and very few repairs are done and using
non contracted licensed or bonded contractors is absolutely disgusting. We let them know heat was not coming out of
our heat pump and they send them to clean it...not fixed.
Loitering, panhandling, camping in public spaces, and allowing encampments degrades the safety of our area.
Enforce the law.
The city should fully adopt its Area Planning Study, set goals and communicate a timeline for implementation.
Charleston is noted as Bremerton's Second Downtown. We have a energized group that has a track record of
revitalization that should be matched by local government.
Housing for the middle class as well as those who may qualify for section 8
Grateful for the Mayor and City Council!
Trees and landscaping to enhance quality of space
During past economic downturns, the City of Bremerton has chosen to severely cut the budget for Parks and
Recreation. I would request that we try not to do so. The reach and impact of those parks and facilities benefit all
residents no matter their income or age. They are community building services and critical to what makes Bremerton,
Bremerton.
affordable childcare, especially for children with disabilities is difficult to find in all areas of Kitsap County. Families
are forced to make difficult choices and often need to leave the workforce. Housing for people with disabilities should
be a priority so that people can continue living in their community. Many times people need to move to another town
and finding new natural supports within the community is often much more difficult and costs the state more to
support them.
We need better and more healthcare services
The city/gov't should not be involved in many of the things you are listing. Communities & people need to start being
responsible for themselves and their choices. If you let the taxpayers choose where their tax dollars went, you'd find
out quickly what is most important.
Clean up the city!
Negligent landlords/owners need to be held accountable for derelict properties. They're aesthetically nauseating and
create a very negative image wherever they are.
Allow the private sector to respond, not the public (govt). Lower taxes, lower regulations and get out of the market
place; government interreference is the main problem.
Too much spent on public transit. All this is more taxes! Spend what you have more carefully.
I think Soundview estates ( Warner Road near Auto Center way) needs a sidewalk and bus service so we can access
transportation services. The 220 for instance could go up the hill. Right now there is no sidewalk and the bus doesn't'
come to the neighborhood as it should. You will see people post on neighborhood pages that they need a ride down
the hill or you see people walking in the road with UPS trucks on hills with no line of sight going by and it is dangerous.
Thank you!
Enforce the existing laws don't create new ones while ignoring the ones you don't like. Including the laws regarding the
camping on public property. Offer drug cleanup services to those who need it but if they don't want them or fail
treatment twice get them to move somewhere else. Do not just give them food, money a place to stay for free that
allow them to continue fulling their actions.
Need more parks, public land and water access, affordable senior housing
More poinit-to-point transpertation for people who use wheelchairs
West Bremerton needs more speed bumps in neighborhoods, lighting, and back alleys paved with lighting. The
community needs more Police and/or Police kiosks in multiple areas of numerous neighborhoods like other foreign
countries, as well as a railway station, and bridge (from Port Orchard to Bremerton) to improve public
transit/transportation. Bremerton needs a hospital, because we no longer have one. Finally, the homeless vagabonds,
drug addicts, and their encampments requires serious attention, and needs to be resolved, as it is out of control.
More green spaces, separate areas for safe family biking. Dog Parks! Safe, secure, properly designed dog parks.
(Sequim WA has some nice dog parks) Paths for people to walk that are not used by skate boarders or bikers.
Community really needs affordable housing and better services for refugees who are new to America and settling in
Kistap County. Refugees have little to no services to help them rebuild their life.
More buses on Sundays, continue running later than 9pm
We really need to get more low income and affordable housing in our area and by affordable, I mean apartments to
rent in the $1000-1400 range.
The Vintage Apartments USED to be affordable Senior Housing and now it is labeled “Luxury Housing” Is anyone
monitoring this change? My senior, disabled mother lives at The Vintage in Silverdale and had to qualify as low income
to move in 2020 but now they have done NO upgrades to the property and raise the rent twice a year to price out the
seniors that live there. It’s grossly unfair and we are now paying half of her inflated rent because she can’t afford to live
anywhere else!
For the programs and services already in effect, there needs to be better oversight. Too many rules get broken and
people getting mistreated.
Need to get the the unincorporated parts of the area done. This should be explained better thanthe information
already out there and is sporatic and is vauge. This may help thoes o the fence.
Reduce budget by 50%. Doge Kitsap county and cities.
Is there a Neighborhood, City, or Region within Kitsap County that you think has needs greater than Others?
Downtown Bremerton
Bremerton, needs .lots of low Income housing
Downtown Bremerton
West Bremerton-there are so many pot holes & roads that need repair. West Bremerton is where the ferry terminal,
shipyard, College, High School & many other important establishments & businesses that have been neglected for
so many years & are historically the OLDEST in all of Kitsap County. The sidewalks need attention. I have seen some
improvements since the condos downtown were built, but we are still so far from being caught up.
Downtown. It’s improving, but still lacking a majority of needs that other similar sized cities have.
Bremerton- derelict home removal, smoother roads.
The neighborhood in Bremerton west of downtown, north of PSNS and east of the highway
Downtown/west side Bremerton...availability of public restrooms. Covered areas for weather protection. Mental
health services and social work in the streets in areas where unhoused tendvto congregate...
Bremerton needs the most. It is the most diversely populated and the most gentrified. People who make $25 an hour
can barely afford to live on their own ( cannot save, cannot afford any kind of emergency, etc.) and that isn't right,
considering how much lower the state minimum wage is in comparison.
Bremerton city limits and the immediate area outside of city limits in unincorporated Bremerton is an area that has a
greater need for street and sidewalk improvements than elsewhere in the county, as well as more need for home
rehabilitation/repair/weatherization.
Downtown Bremerton. It's shameful the amount of garbage and filth people leave all over. Last time I checked
littering, being an aggressive nuisance and loitering are against the law.
Downtown Bremerton
Most of the city of Bremerton need the roads and sidewalks improved.
Downtown Bremerton (around the Salvation Army and the big parking lot on 5th/4th) has a big stale urine smell
problem due to a lack of highly available and free public restrooms that are open 24/7 outside of the ferry terminal.
We really need a place for people to be able to go to the bathroom that we do not need to pay money to a business to
be able to access. We need one all times of day and every day of the week. There's so much empty space in these
parking lots that could be developed to accommodate a free public bathroom in a well lit area that is central to
downtown. this would benefit our unhoused folks, folks who are tourists in town, and those of us who live in town
98337 in Bremerton
Bremerton
West Bremerton & Wheaton Way Stretch in East Bremerton
98310 the smaller streets between lebo and sheridan are the most traveled through but are never repaired. In over
20 years living here each vehicle has had suspension damage because all the pot holes.
The roads around the Perry Ave Mall neighborhood are atrocious, honestly. And the downtown/6th and pacific area
needs more mental health and homeless services— not just arresting or shooing people from the neighborhood, but
Bremerton
East bremerton
Bremerton. Housing
There is a place called Kitsap public market, along Trenton Road that isn't be used (i assume) and would like to see it
fixed up and running for the neighborhood to have somewhere to shop at!
Areas for sure on the East side of Bremerton, some places have no sidewalks, or the streets need major
improvements; street lighting is obsolete in your older neighborhoods.
Yeah, over by callow there are quite a few neighborhoods that are in rough shape
Bremerton
303/wheaton
Downtown around the salvation army
East Bremerton
Acorn st/Oak st
Yes, very specifically callahan drive. The parkview apartments are infested with american AND german
COCKROACHES. the side walks are tripping and safety hazards over here too.
sidewalks and speed bumps in Tracyton are urgently needed; cars race through at top speed not paying attention to
pedestrians or cyclists.
Bremerton needs the most help
Bremerton
Kariotis especially on McWilliams road. It is in need of sidewalks and lighting.
There are areas of Bremerton where the entire block/street looks like a slum with run down properties and broken
down cars/trash etc. I can't think of a particular neighborhood off the top of my head.
West Bremerton
West Bremerton, Silverdale, and South Kitsap. All have growing populations and are in need of affordable housing,
either renting or owning.
Anderson Cove Navy Yard City
Downtown Bremerton
The census shows that Bremerton has the highest need for low-income services in Kitsap County.
Area outside state street gate
Downtown Bremerton, rural Port Orchard, and rural Seabeck/Crosby
Bremerton....it isn't known as the armpit of Kitsap Co for no reason.
Bremerton has the highest population, oldest buildings and infrastructure, and is central for public services - please
On Seabeck Highway just before Fern Leona there’s no street lights and especially in front of 3551 with no moon it’s
so dark, plus in the snow there’s been at least two vehicles that have gone off into our yard so we feel more needs to
Phinney Bay area, Bremerton
Low income neighborhoods built by housing kitsap
Greater downtown area of Bremerton
Charleston neighborhood... the hills to the east & northeast of the shipyard. Lots of houses falling into disrepair,
absentee landlords, etc.
Anderson Cove
West Bremerton, take a look around
Phinney Bay neighborhood District 6
West Bremerton, where the 224 bus runs, has nearly no sidewalks and the roads are often unsafe even for drivers.
Erland Point and surrounding areas with a water view have the potential to become a high income desirable area of
Chico and Bremerton. With improvements to the roads, dangerous ditches, proper drainage, and sewer
infrastructure, this spot could attract tax payers and homeowners in a much higher bracket.
Yes, multiple areas in W. Bremerton
I have seen Silverdale grow immensely with all the new housing. Navy yard city could use a community safe place to
gather and get a warm meal and clothing etc
Bremerton
Upper Kitsap way by miller Woodlawn needs to be improved. Reduce lanes, add turn lanes/sidewalks/bike lanes,
etc. It’s been long enough waiting for that area to be improved.
Bremerton
Communities surrounding PSNS
Every neighborhood without sidewalks.
The streets in Bremerton are in need of repairs.
People from Pendleton Place ride their electric wheelchairs in the bike lanes on Kitsap Way. It's so dangerous for
them to do that. Drivers speed constantly on Shorewood Dr (20 MPH). Drivers make UTurns at Kitsap Way and
Shorewood Dr. Drivers cut through the business parking lot where Tiny's House of Crabs is to avoid the stop light at
Navy Yard City
No
Silverdale in particular. The roads were not designed to hold the amount of people we had on them even 10 years
ago. With the influx of homeless and drug users in the area, it is hard to take my growing family to public areas and
Kitsap Way corridor
Bremerton
Charleston and west hills area. I feel like everyone leaves them out because of the crime rates.
6th Ave area is basically Skid Row. This very appealing to visitors and compromises public safety.
The Charleston Business District is a district center that has not had the level of investment by the city and county of
any area in Bremerton.
Callow/Charleston
I think the Kitsap Way area needs revitalizing
Wheaton way, Kitsap way,6th and 11th corridors
The neighborhoods around 11th, Warren Avenue and Olympic Community College have sub-standard rental
housing. It would be beneficial to focus efforts there. Also, there is a lot of opportunity for high density housing
downtown. I know the City is looking at adjusting zoning for this purpose and I am supportive of it.
Bremerton/Gorst people traveling through this area dont even realize its Bremerton not even
Ems/police/transport/USPs/delivery/social services/medical care systems/etc
West Bremerton
Downtown
Bremerton
Any area where vacant homes and businesses are boarded up and prone to illegal entry, vandalization, and creating
a dangerous atmosphere for the public in general.
West Bremerton
I think Soundview estates needs a sidewalk and bus service so we can access transportation services. The 220 for
instance could go up the hill. Right now there is no sidewalk and the bus doesn't' come to the neighborhood as it
should. You will see people post on neighborhood pages that they need a ride down the hill or you see people
walking in the road with UPS trucks on hills with no line of sight going by and it is dangerous. Thank you!
Clear Creek area, downtown Silverdale
It seems like most older and poorer areas need more attention
West Bremerton; all of Bremerton!
Bremerton, silverdale, & port orchard.
Navy yard city
We need sidewalks in Chico (between Silverdale and Bremerton)
West Bremerton (e.g. Charleston and Sixth)
Jobs. I am unemployed and no one has jobs available.
West Bremerton
Downtown Bremerton
Silverdale
Kitsapway road quality especially by the cemetary
Bremerton areond the shipyard, traffic, lighting, small and medium business and the homless shipped over from
Seattle which brings the homlessness, crime, drugs and overall bad impression of the city.
2026-2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN +
YEAR 1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Nov 5 th -Public Hearing
City Consolidated Plan Timeline
Data Gathering
January -March
Setting Priorities
April –May
Council approved in
June
2026 Coordinated
Grant Cycle
May -September
Finalize Con Plan
and Action Plan
Year 1
October -November
Plan Due to HUD
November 15th 2025
*Consolidated Plan and Year 1 Funding Recommendations
•Includes
county wide
housing data
County/City Joint 5 Year Plan
County Year 1 Action Plan
•Public Process
•Needs Assessment
•Market Study
•Strategic Plan
* City Consolidated Plan
•2026 recommended projects
* Year 1 Action Plan
Public Input –
CDBG@bremertonwa.gov
30-day comment period open
September 29 –Oct 30
Kitsap Sun Legal Ad +
City E-news + Posted to City Website
+ City Facebook + Flyers in NDGC
City Council Study Session –Oct 22
City Council Public Hearing –Nov 5
Coordinated Grant Application Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*City of
Bremerton
CDBG
County
CDBG
HOME
(*29% for
Bremerton)
CIAH
HUD –CDBG Entitlement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulatory Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Review
Committee City Staff
Planning Commission
City Council
Community Members
Application + Review
Timeline
Pre -Application Appointments –June 07-17
Applications Opened –June 17
Applications Closed –July 15
Initial Review + Scoring -August
Projects Ranked by Score –August 28
Applicant Interviews –September 9 + 11
Committee Deliberation-September 9-11
Funding
Availability
Snapshot
2026 Estimated Entitlement
Estimated Program Income
Available Prior Year Funds
CDBG Admin
(20% of Entitlement + program income)
Available for CDBG Projects
$300,000
$5,000
$130,409
-$61,000
$374,409
PRC Recommendations for 2026 CDBG Funding
Applicant Project Name
Amount of
Request
PRC Funding
Recommendation
Catholic Community
Services Benedict House Rehab $152,000.00 $152,000.00
Kitsap Community
Resources KCR Weatherization $50,000 $50,000.00
City of Bremerton
ADA Curb Ramps -
various $142,025.00 $112,409.00
Kitsap Community
Resources KCR BE$T $60,000.00 $60,000.00
WeeCare (Upwards)BOOST Microenterprise $80,000.00 -
Total Requested: $484,025.00 $374,409.00
Total Estimated amount
available for Capital
Projects $374,409.00 $374,409.00
-$109,616.00 $0.00
Council
Priorities
Micro
enterprise
Public
Facilities
/Infrastructure
Preserving
Affordable
Housing
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES –
BENEDICT HOUSE
•$152,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public
Facilities/
Infrastructure
Kitsap Community Resources
Weatherization/Minor Home Repair
•$50,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preserving
Affordable
Housing
City of Bremerton – Public Works Dept
ADA Access Improvements
•$112,409.00
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public
Facilities/
Infrastructure
Kitsap Community Resources-
BE$T Program
•$60,000
•
•
•
Microenterprise
•
COUNTY GRC RECCOMENDATION for City HOME funds-
Downpayment Assistance Program
•$114,622
•
•
Preserving
Affordable
Housing
PRC Recommended Contingencies
Estimated Funding 2024: $375,000
Actual Funding 2024: $381,000
*actual funding subject to Federal budget*
*Consolidated Plan and Year 1 Funding Recommendations*
•Includes
county wide
housing data
County/City Joint 5 Year Plan
County Year 1 Action Plan
•Public Process
•Needs Assessment
•Market Study
•Strategic Plan
* City Consolidated Plan
•2026 recommended projects
* Year 1 Action Plan
COUNTY FUNDS ADDRESSING HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
•
•
•
•
•
•
THANK YOU
Sarah Lynam
CDBG Administrator
CDBG@bremertonwa.gov
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: 10/22/2025
Ordinance to levy Property Taxes for
Collection in 2026
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/05/2025
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Mike Riley & Missy
Gaines
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Cities over 10,000 in population are allowed to raise their annual property tax collection
by either 1% or the amount of the July Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), whichever is lower. This year,
the IPD was 2.44%.
The City is requesting the full 1% increase to our general property tax and EMS levy over the prior
year’s collection, as allowed by law. This increase, along with the amounts anticipated for new
construction, has been included in the 2025-2026 Proposed Mid-Biennium Budget.
RCW 84.52.020 requires all taxing districts to “certify to the county legislative authority, for the
purpose of levying district taxes…the amounts to be raised” by property taxes. RCW 84.55.120
requires that the certification includes the enabling tax ordinance setting the property tax rate. These
documents must be submitted to the county by December 1, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. _____ 2. Power Point Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed 2025-2026 mid-biennium budget
anticipates passage of this ordinance. Budgeted revenue matches the levy amounts as the total
collections in recent years closely approximate the actual amount collected. In the General Fund
revenue from the general property tax levy is $9,450,072 and the EMS levy is $3,253,363. Revenue
from voter approved levies are budgeted in Debt Service funds and include $900,000 for the 2010
Public Safety bond.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. _____ establishing the amount to be collected in 2026 by taxation on
the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property
levy rate.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
C2
1
2026 Property Tax
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in
2026 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property
within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy
rate.
WHEREAS, the City Council attests that the population of the City of
Bremerton for 2025 is 45,890; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has properly given notice of the public hearing
held on November 5, 2025, to consider the City's revenue sources for the City's General
Fund budget; and
WHEREAS, the City's actual levy amount from the previous year, including
any refunds and abatements levied was $9,262,336; and
WHEREAS, the City's actual EMS levy amount from the previous year,
including any refunds and abatements levied was $3,148,146; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing and duly considering all relevant
evidence and testimony presented, has determined that the City of Bremerton requires a
regular levy and EMS levy in the maximum amounts allowable, which is a 1.0% increase to
the highest lawful levy allowed by law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is
hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2026 tax year. The dollar amount of
the increase over the actual levy from the previous year shall be $0 which is an effective
percent increase of 0% from the previous year levy. This increase is exclusive of
additional revenue resulting from new construction, any increase in the value of state
assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made.
SECTION 2. That an EMS levy is hereby authorized for the levy to
be collected in the 2026 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy
from the previous year shall be $31,481 which is an effective percent increase of 1.0%
over the previous years levy. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting
from new construction, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any
additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made.
This levy is further subject to the maximum allowable levy rate of $0.50 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation.
2
2026 Property Tax
SECTION 3. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2010
Public Safety UTGO Refunding Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby
authorized to levy property taxes to be collected in 2026 at a rate sufficient to provide
$900,000 needed to meet debt service obligations in 2026.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2025
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this day of , 2025
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of , 2025
EFFECTIVE the day of , 2025
ORDINANCE NO.
Levy Certification
In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Michael Riley, Director of Financial Services
and Administration for the City of Bremerton, do hereby certify to the Kitsap County
legislative authority that the Bremerton City Council of said district requests that the
following levy amounts be collected in 2026 as provided in the City’s budget, which
was adopted following a public hearing held on November 5, 2025. A copy of the
approved ordinance is attached.
Regular Levy: $ 9,450,072
Regular Refund Levy: $ 104,082
EMS Levy: $ 3,253,363
EMS Refund Levy: $ 30,123
Excess Levy
(2010 Public Safety UTGO Refunding Bond): $ 900,000
Signature:____________________________ Date: _________________
Michael Riley, Director of Financial Services and Administration
City of Bremerton
345 6th Street, Suite 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
(360) 473-5303
Mike.riley@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Property Tax Ordinance: Rates and Fees General: Rates and Fees
Utilities
Presentation to discuss the 2026 Property Tax and the 2026 Rates and Fees for the City of Bremerton
2026 Property Tax Ordinance
Agenda Packet Page 284
2026 Property Tax
Ordinance - Continued
Summary
•Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) – 2.44%
•Assessed Valuation 2026 - $6,348,932,150
•Assessed Valuation 2025 - $6,346,068,345
•YOY Change in AV $2,863,805
•Estimated Total Levy Limit General - $9,450,072
•Estimated Total Levy Limit EMS - $3,253,363
•New Construction - $128,432
•New Construction EMS - $43,613
•2015 Public Safety Voted Bonds Paid Off in 2025
•2010 Public Safety Voted Bonds - $900,000 debt service 2026
•2027 Maturity $1,615,000 outstanding
Rates and Fees – General
Agenda Packet Page 288
Rates and Fees –
Utility
•Agenda Packet Page 325
Rates and Fees –
Utility – Cont.
•Agenda Packet Page 325
•Water – 3%
•Wastewater 3%
•Stormwater 3%
•GFC’s Based on CCI Index 5
year Average - 3.86%
•Other Charges based on actual
time and materials
Rates and Fees – Utility – Cont.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: 10/22/2025
Ordinance to amend and re-establish City
Rates and Fees for 2025-2026
Mid-Biennium
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/05/2025
Department: All
Presenter: Mike Riley
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Each year, as part of the budget process, the various City departments review their
charges, rates and fees for services and make recommendations on any changes needed. The
exhibit includes recommended changes to fees charged by the various departments.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. ____ ; 2. Exhibit A; and 3. Power Point Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Impacts to revenues are dependent on the
demand for services. The 2025-2026 proposed mid-biennium budget does anticipate the approval of
the ordinance and related rate tables.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. ____ amending and re-establishing City Rates and Fees for 2025-2026
mid-biennium.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
C3
Page 1 of 2
2025-2026 Rates & Fees
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending and reestablishing rates and fees
for services established in Ordinance No. 5500 relating to Animal
Control, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (“BKAT”),
Department of Community Development, Department of Financial
Services, Fire Department, Gold Mountain Golf Course, Ivy Green
Cemetery, Kitsap Conference Center, Municipal Court, Parking,
Parks and Recreation Department, Police Department, Public
Records, Department of Public Works and Utilities, Tax & License,
Telecommunications, Transportation Benefit District, and other
related services.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by this ordinance, desires to amend and reestablish
the rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5500; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rate Tables Amended and Reestablished. The rates and fees
relating to Animal Control, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (“BKAT”), Department of
Community Development, Department of Financial Services, Fire Department, Gold Mountain
Golf Course, Ivy Green Cemetery, Kitsap Conference Center, Municipal Court, Parking, Parks
and Recreation Department, Police Department, Public Records, Department of Public Works
and Utilities, Tax & License, Telecommunications, Transportation Benefit District, and other
related services, as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5500, are hereby amended and
reestablished in their entirety as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this ordinance, said
exhibit is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Rate Tables - Effective Date. The amendment and
reestablishment of rate tables as set forth in Section 1 above shall be effective January 1, 2026.
SECTION 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the
correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
Page 2 of 2
2025-2026 Rates & Fees
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this ________ day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2025.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2025.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
2025 RATES & FEES2026
RATES & FEES
City of Bremerton
Ordinance No. 5500
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rate Table Page
ANIMAL CONTROL ............................................................................................. 1
BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT) ............................................. 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 4
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ............................................................ 12
FIRE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................................ 13
GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE ...................................................................... 14
IVY GREEN CEMETERY ....................................................................................... 15
KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER ........................................................................... 16
MUNICIPAL COURT ............................................................................................ 17
PARKING ........................................................................................................... 18
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ............................................................... 20
POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................ 25
PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................... 26
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES .................................................. 27
TAX & LICENSE ................................................................................................... 28
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................... 29
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT…………………………………………………………….30
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 1 | Page
TABLE A ANIMAL CONTROL FEES
1. Licenses for Dogs and Cats
a) For Each Cat Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering)
− Annual $7.00
− 3-Years $15.00
− Lifetime $25.00
b) For Each Dog Spayed or Neutered (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering)
− Annual $12.00
− 3-Year $25.00
− Lifetime $45.00
c) For Each Cat Not Spayed or Neutered $40.00
d) For Each Dog Not Spayed or Neutered $50.00
e) Senior Citizen Permanent Dog/Cat $12.00
f) Replacement Tag $3.00
g) Additional License Fee (for late renewal) $10.00
2. License for Chickens
a) Annually up to five (5) chickens $12.50
b) Senior permanent for up to five (5) chickens $12.50
3. Impound and Redemption Fees - Domestic Animals
a) Impound $45.00
b) Vaccination $45.00
c) Boarding (per day) $20.00
d) Medical care Case dependent
e) Microchip $30.00
4. Impound and Redemption Fees - Livestock
a) Impound $60.00
b) Boarding (per day) $40.00
c) Medical care Case dependent
d) Special Transportation fee $120.00
2 | Page
TABLE B BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)
1. PRE-PRODUCTION (STANDARD RATE)
a) Equipment Consultation $109.00/hour
b) Program Development $109.00/hour
c) Research $109.00/hour
d) Location Scout (RT travel billed separately) $109.00/hour
e) Scripting $109.00/hour
f) Graphics Development $109.00/hour
2. PRODUCTION (STANDARD RATE)*
a) Set-up, Shooting, Breakdown $109.00/hour
b) Travel (portal to portal) $109.00/hour
*Production at Standard Rate applies to qualified remote meeting location/client-owned equipment or
zoom coverage for government meetings with 1 staff onsite, 1 staff on call or rate for BKAT studio
production
3. PRODUCTION (FIELD RATE)
a) BKAT-owned equipment, 1 staff filming onsite $130.00/hour
b) BKAT-owned equipment with crew of 2-5 filming onsite $ $183.00/hour
LIVE STREAM SURCHARGE
(Support & Data Costs) $27.60/hour
Live stream surcharge applies to live field productions only
WEEKEND/HOLIDAY SURCHARGE
(Friday after 5pm, Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
Multiplied by applicable Standard and/or Field Production rates 1.5 x rate/hour
4. POST-PRODUCTION
a) Edit $109.00/hour
b) Voice Over $109.00/hour
c) File processing, Playback Scheduling, Indexing, Archiving $109.00/hour
5. BKAT MEMBER TRAINING
a) Studio - 3 hours of camera and director training – max 4 people No Charge
Additional hours $109.00/hour
6. MISCELLANEOUS
a) Cancellation fee (equivalent of 2 hour minimum charge) $218.00
b) 32 GB thumb drive for video storage $5.00 each
7. MEMBERSHIP (ANNUAL)
a) Individual Resident (within Kitsap County) $25.00
b) Individual Non-Resident $50.00
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 3 | Page
c) Organization – Resident (within Kitsap County) $75.00
d) Organization – Non-Resident $150.00
8. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
BKAT will produce a non—commercial PSA (subject to BKAT guidelines found in the current BKAT Policy
Handbook) with or without voiceover to air on BKAT for a minimum of two weeks. Client receives a digital
copy for their own purposes. $109.00/hour
9. PUBLIC RECORDS DUPLICATION
a) Duplicate video tape to DVD (time dependent on meeting length) $109.00/hour
b) Duplicate video tape to digital downloadable file
(time dependent on meeting length plus conversion process) $109.00/hour
c) Duplicate DVD to digital downloadable file
(time dependent on conversion process) $109.00/hour
4 | Page
TABLE C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. CODE ENFORCEMENT
a) ABATEMENTS
− Dangerous Building $900 + Direct Service and Supply Cost
− Garbage & Weed $640 + Direct Service and Supply Cost
b) ABANDONED PROPERTY FINES & PENALTIES
− Failure to Register $1,000 + $100 per day
− Failure to Inspect, Maintain, and/or Secure $1,000 + $100 per day
c) RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION FINES & PENALTIES
− Failure to Register and File a Declaration of Compliance as Required
$1,000 + $100 per day
− Failure to Obtain a Certificate of Inspection When Required
$1,000 + $100 per day
2. PLANNING
a) SUBDIVISIONS
− Boundary Line Adjustment $365
− Preliminary Short $1000 + $150/lot
− Preliminary Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $2500 (base) + per lot
• 1-100 lots $150/lot
• 101-200 lots $100/lot
• 201 + lots $75/lot
− Final Short $630 + $40/lot
− Final Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $945 + 40/lot
− Minor Amendment $630 (no lot fee)
− Extension $630 (no lot fee)
b) SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
− Substantial Development Permit $1300
− Conditional Use Permit – Type II $850
− Conditional Use Permit – Type III $1750
− Shoreline Variance $1750
− Permit Revision $325
− Shoreline Exemption $100
c) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
− Checklist $320
− Environmental Impact Statement Review/Adoption $650 +
additional cost of expertise
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 7 | Page
EXHIBIT 1
BUILDING AND OTHER PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION1 FEE
$1.00 TO $500.00 $35.00
$501.00 TO $2,000.00 $35.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $100.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $40,000 $80.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $11.00 for each additional $1,000.00,
or fraction thereof, to and including $40,000
$40,001.00 to $100,000.00 $498.00 for the first $40,000; plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00,
or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1,038.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,838.00for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 to 5,000,000.00 $6,338.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to include $5,000,000.00
$5,000,001.00 and over $18,338.00 for the first $5,000,000.00; plus $1.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum
charge – two hours)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this
chapter shall be as follows (per inspection):
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
(minimum charge – one-half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to plans (minimum charge – one-half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and
inspections, or both
Actual Costs2
6. Manufactured Home Setup Fee Foundation Bid Price valuation used in Exhibit 1
7. Moved Building Permit Fee (not including other
required permits)
$100.00
8. Demolition permit Fee: 3 cents per square foot, with a
minimum charge of
$100.00
9. Energy Code Plan Review Surcharge for New Single
Family Residences
$50.00
1 Valuation includes fair market value of labor and materials.
2 Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.
8 | Page
EXHIBIT 2
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance and Heaters Fee
1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $25.00
2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been
canceled or finaled $7.25
Unit Fee Schedule (Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee)
1. Furnaces
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner,
including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h
(29.3 kW) $14.80
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner,
including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $18.20
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14.80
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-
mounted unit heater $14.80
2. Appliance Vents
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not
included in an appliance permit $7.25
3. Repairs or Additions
For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit,
cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling
system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $13.70
4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3
horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $14.70
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower (10.6
kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000
Btu/h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) $27.15
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7
kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000
Btu/h (146.6 kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) $37.20
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5
kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000
Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) $55.45
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176
kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) $92.65
5. Air Handlers
For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 L/s),
including ducts attached thereto
Note: This fee does not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory-
assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit
is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code $10.65
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 9 | Page
For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 :s) $18.10
6. Evaporative Coolers
For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $10.65
7. Ventilation and Exhaust
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.25
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system
authorized by a permit $10.65
For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts
for such hood $10.65
8. Incinerators
For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator $18.20
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator $14.50
9. Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classed
in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table $10.65
For each gas piping system $10.00
Other Inspections and Fees
Inspections outside of normal business hours, per
hour (minimum charge – two hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this
chapter shall be as follows (per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated,
per hour (minimum charge – one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
Additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which
an initial review has been completed (minimum
charge – one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
10 | Page
EXHIBIT 3
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance
1. For issuing each permit $25.00
2. For issuing each supplemental permit $10.00
Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to items 1 and 2 above)
1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including
water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefore) $7.00
2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $15.00
3. Rainwater systems – per drain (inside building) $7.00
4. For each cesspool (where permitted) $25.00
5. For each private sewage disposal system $40.00
6. For each water heater and/or vent $7.00
7. For each gas piping system $10.00
8. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent,
except kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $7.00
9. For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating
equipment, each $7.00
10. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $7.00
11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection
devices therefore $7.00
12. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 12:
1 to 5 $5.00
Over 5, each $1.00
13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum
breakers:
2 inch (51 mm) diameter and smaller $7.00
Over 2 inch (51 mm) diameter $15.00
14. For each graywater system $40.00
15. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system $30.001
16. For each annual cross-connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding
initial test ) $30.001
17. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a
specific gas $50.00
18. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s) $5.00
Other Inspections and Fees
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re-inspection fee Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions
to approved plans (minimum charge – one-half hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 11 | Page
EXHIBIT 4
GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $23.50
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $49.25
10,001 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards
(7645.5 m3), plus $24.50 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,456 m3 to 152,911 m3) $269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic yards
(76,455 m3), plus $13.25 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
200,001 cubic yards (152,912 m3) or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards
(152,911 m3), plus $7.25 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3) or fraction thereof
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to approved plans (minimum charge – one-half
hour)
Hourly rate per Rate Table C –
Miscellaneous Fees
GRADING PERMIT FEES1
50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less $23.50
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $37.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3)
plus $17.50 for each additional 100 cubic
yards (76.5 m3) or fraction thereof
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $194.50 for the first 1,000 cubic yards
(764.6 m3), plus $14.50 for each additional
1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m3) $325.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3), plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof
100,001 cubic yards (76,456 m3) or more $919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455
m3), plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours
(minimum charge – two hours) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions
of this chapter shall be as follows (per
inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (minimum charge – one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C – Miscellaneous Fees
1The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original
permit and the fee shown for the entire project.
12 | Page
TABLE D DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
1. CHECK HANDLING FEE $40.00
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 13 | Page
TABLE E FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES
a) BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands / Displays $100/stand/year
b) BMC 9.48.020(9) Cash Bond
− Fireworks Stand Clean-Up (refundable) $50/stand/year
− Citywide Fireworks Clean-up Fee (non-refundable) $50/stand/year
c) BMC 18.06
− Ambulance Services $75.00/vehicle
− Ambulance Inspections $75.00/vehicle
2. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE
a) ALS—1 $1115.00
b) ALS – 2 $1280.00
c) BLSE $895.00
d) Mileage $18.00$20.00/mile
3. EMS SERVICE CALL TO ASSISTED LIVING, LONG TERM CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES
$500 After first response per quarter
4. RE-INSPECTION FEE $73.00
5. HAZARD MATERIALS RESPONSE
a) Rice Hull Ash Actual Cost per Bag
b) Absorbent Pads Actual Cost per Bag
6. STAND-BY-TIME
a) Fire Engine w/Crew of 2 $155.001 + $150.00 = $305.00/hour
b) Fire Engine w/Crew of 3 $155.001 + $225.00 = $380.00/hour
c) Fire Engine w/Crew of 4 $155.001 + $300.00 = $455.00/hour
7. ACTIVE FIREFIGHTING
a) Fire Engine Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate1
b) Aerial Ladder Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate1
1Washington Fire Chiefs Association Wage & Equipment Rates for the Washington State Fire Service
8. FIRE WATCH $100/hour
9. AFTER HOURS INSPECTION $100/hour – 2 hour Minimum
10. RUSH PLAN REVIEW $100/hour – 2 hour Minimum
11. OPERATIONAL PERMIT $100.00
12. FIRE SAFETY OFFICERS $100/hour – 2 hour minimum
13. FALSE FIRE ALARM $200.00
14 | Page
TABLE F GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
1. CASCADE COURSE (prices do not include sales tax)
a) Friday 18 Holes $52.0055.00
b) Weekday 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $48.0050.00
c) Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $58.0065.00
d) Weekday 9 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $34.0035.00
e) Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $34.0036.00
f) Continuation Fee $32.00
g)f) Twilight Weekday (Mon-Thurs) $30.0033.00
h)g) Twilight Weekend/Holiday $34.0036.00
i)h) League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $26.00
j)i) Junior 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $18.00
k)j) Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $18.00
l) 36 Hole Special (Mon-Thurs) $95.00
m) 36 Hole Special (Fri-Sun) $110.00
n)k) Senior Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2) $280.00300.00
o)l) Regular 10 Round Punch Card $320.00330.00
p)m) Junior 10 Round Punch Card $130.00
q)n) Low Income Sr. Punch Card (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) (Note: 2) $130.00
r)o) Daily Private Cart $22.00
s)p) Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $85.0090.00
2. OLYMPIC COURSE (prices do not include sales tax)
a) Friday 18 Holes $81.0082.00
b) Weekday 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $72.00
c) Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (Note: 1) $90.0099.00
d) Weekday 9 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $38.00
e) Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes $48.00
f) Continuation Fee $35.00
g)f) Twilight Weekday (Mon-Thurs) $37.00
h)g) Twilight Weekend/Holiday $48.00
i)h) League Rate (Not Sat, Sun or Holiday) $26.00
j)i) Junior 18 Holes (Mon-Thurs) $28.00
k)j) Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday $28.00
l) 36 Hole Special (Mon-Thurs) $95.00
m) 36 Hole Special (Fri-Sun) $110.00
n)k) Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18 Hole Green Fee) $120.00
o)l) Olympic Punch Card Plus $32.00
p)m) Annual Pass Single
$2,700.003,000.00
q)n) Annual Pass Couple $3,900.004,000.00
r)o) Annual Pass Family $4,400.005,000.00
s)p) Annual Pass Junior (Mon-Thurs) $700.00
1. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May-September Not to Exceed Rate)
May be used for twilight any day of the week including holidays.
2. Ages 62 & up with household income < $18,000.
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 15 | Page
TABLE G IVY GREEN CEMETERY
1. GRAVE SITES
a) Adult $1,600.001,680.00
b) Infant (Not in Infant Sections) $1,600.001,680.00
c) Infant Section $400.00420.00
d) Veteran $930.00980.00
e) Perpetual Care (collected at time of site sale) 10% of site fee
2. LINERS (Subject to sales tax)
a) Casket Liner $1,060.001,115.00
b) Cremation Liner $255.00270.00
c) Infant Liner $430.00455.00
d) Oversized Liner $1,400.001,470.00
3. OPENING AND CLOSING
a) Casket $930.00980.00
b) Cremation $350.00375.00
c) Infant $650.00685.00
d) Veteran $560.00590.00
4. DISINTERNMENT
a) Adult $2,000.002,100.00
b) Infant $2,000.002,100.00
c) Urn $330.00350.00
d) Removal (only) $1,320.001,390.00
5. MARKER SETTING FEES
a) Setting Fee $410.00430.00
6. GRAVE SIDE SERVICES
a) Chairs & Awning $460.00485.00
7. MARKERS (Subject to sales tax)
a) Markers Value based on size and type of marker
16 | Page
TABLE H KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER
All Rates are Minimum Rates
1. ROOM RENTAL (in conjunction with food minimums) 1
a) Puget Sound Ballroom- per section (4 sections) $1200.00
b) Oyster Bay Room $500.00
c) Marina Vista 1 & 2 – per section $600.00
d) Marina Vista 3 $800.00
e) Glacier Cove 1 & 2 – per section $600.00
f) Fountain Room $2000.00
2. RECURRING ROOM RENTAL (at least 35 events per year)
a) Room fee waived with food purchase for at least 60 people.
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 17 | Page
TABLE I MUNICIPAL COURT
1. EX PARTE FILING FEE $20.00
2. HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL $73.00
3. TRAFFIC PENALTIES
a) Inattention to Driving $139.00
b) Automated Traffic Safety Camera Violations $139.00
4. INSURANCE DISMISSAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE $25.00
5. CERTIFIED DOCUMENT FEE (per document) $5.00
6. COPY FEE (per page) $0.50
7. COPY FEE (made to CD or other electronic device) $20.00
8. COPY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDING (per CD) $10.00
9. APPEAL PREPARATION FEE $40.00
10. NON-SUFFICIENT FUNDS FEE (NSF Fee) $40.00
18 | Page
TABLE J PARKING
1. PARKING FEES*
a) On-Street Locations
− 3 hours $20.00
− 10 hours $30.00
b) Off-Street Location
− 3 hours $20.00
− 10 hours $30.00
c) Parking Garage Monthly Permit $200.00/month
d) Administrative Immobilization Fee (i.e. boot) $100.00/boot
2. RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS*
a) Residential Parking Permits
− First Two Permits NO COST
− Each additional permit issued not-to-exceed four permits per unit $100.00
b) Petition for Creation of Residential Restricted Parking Zone $100.00
c) Replacement of parking permit $10.00/permit
d) Visitor Parking Permits NO COST
e) Service/Landlord Permits NO COST
3. PARKING PENALTIES
a) Overtime or Reparking
− 1st Violation in 180 Days $20.00
− 2nd Violation in 180 Days $60.00
− 3rd or More Violation in 180 Days $180.00
b) Non-Payment in Collection Devices
− 1st Violation in 180 days $20.00
− 2nd Violation in 180 days $60.00
− 3rd Violation in 180 days $180.00
c) Loading Zones $25.00
d) No Parking
− 1st Violation in 180 days $30.00
− 2nd Violation in 180 days $60.00
− 3rd Violation in 180 days $180.00
e) Wrong Way $35.00
f) Parked on Sidewalk $30.00
g) Fire Hydrant $35.00
h) 12" From Curb $30.00
i) Physically Disabled (Public and Private) $450.00
j) Counterfeiting or User of Counterfeit Permits,
− Tokens or Script $500.00
− Unauthorized Use of Permits $250.00
k) Blocked Driveway $35.00
l) Expired Tabs $45.00
m) 30 Foot to Stop Sign $30.00
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 19 | Page
n) Double Parked $35.00
o) No Stopping/No Standing $30.00
p) Failure to Respond – Additional Penalty $25.00
q) All parking infractions set forth in Chapter 10.10 BMC not identified above $30.00
*Rates are not-to-exceed rates. These rates shall apply unless reduced by the Department of Financial
Services for a specific site or use.
20 | Page
TABLE K PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Non-Resident Fee – Base Fee plus 25%
All Rates Listed Are “Not To Exceed” Fees
9. FACILITY USE RENTAL RATES
• Facility use policies apply.
• Appropriate taxes are included in rates unless otherwise noted.
• Regular Groups (10 or more meetings a year, reserved in advance) may receive up to a 20%
discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees.
a) SHERIDAN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER – ROOM RENTAL RATES
− (Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Recreation and/or educational purposes only.
Per hour, two (2) hour minimum
• Daytime (Monday – Friday: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM)
(i) Lounge $14.0015.00
(ii) Room A, B/C, Conference Room $12.0013.00
(iii) Gym $33.0035.00
• Evenings (Monday – Thursday: 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM)
(i) Lounge $30.0035.00
(ii) Room A, B, Conference Room $24.0030.00
(iii) Gym $44.0050.00
(iv) Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $72.0075.00
(v) Entire building – Up to eight (8) hours* $820.00860.00
• Friday Evening (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) & Saturday and Sunday
(i) Lounge $36.0040.00
(ii) Room A, B, Conference Room $28.0030.00
(iii) Gym $52.0055.00
(iv) Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $84.0090.00
(v) Entire building – Up to eight (8) hours* $850.00865.00
− (Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
Per hour, two (2) hour minimum
• Lounge $54.0060.00
• Room A, B, Conference Room $42.0045.00
• Gym $78.0085.00
• Room Package (Lounge & Gym) $126.00130.00
• Entire Building - Up to eight (8) hours* $1,275.001,350.00
*Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires an additional staffing fee at
$20.0025.00 per hour.
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 21 | Page
b) PARK SHELTERS – RESERVATION FEES
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless otherwise noted.
Bremerton residents may reserve park shelters beginning January 1st for the upcoming year. Non-
resident reservations will be accepted beginning February 1st.
− (Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
• Bachmann, Bataan, Lent Landing, Matan, NAD (Upper) Shelters and Gazebos
$33.0035.00
• Blueberry Shelter $57.0060.00
• Evergreen Shelter 1 $90.0095.00
• Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $44.0050.00
• Evergreen Shelter 4 (not reservable, first come first served) NO CHARGE
• Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $48.0050.00
• Evergreen Amphitheatre with power $200.00210.00
• Kiwanis Park Shelter $46.0050.00
• Lions Park Shelter 1 $62.0065.00
• Lions Park Shelter 2 $46.0050.00
• Manette Park Shelter $46.0050.00
• Warren Avenue Playfield Shelter $46.0050.00
• Kitsap Lake Park Shelter $ $48.00
• Haddon Park Shelter $ $48.00
• Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $33.0035.00
− (Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
• Bachmann, Bataan, Lent Landing, Matan, NAD (Upper) Shelters and Gazebos
$49.5055.00
• Blueberry Shelter $85.5090.00
• Evergreen Shelter 1 $135.00145.00
• Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $66.0070.00
• Evergreen Shelter 4 (not reservable) NO CHARGE
• Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $72.5075.00
• Evergreen Amphitheatre with power $300.00315.00
• Kiwanis Park Shelter $70.0075.00
• Lions Park Shelter 1 $93.00100.00
• Lions Park Shelter 2 $69.5075.00
• Manette Park Shelter $69.5075.00
• Warren Avenue Playfield Shelter $69.5075.00
• Kitsap Lake Park Shelter $ $75.00
• Haddon Park Shelter $75.00
• Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $49.5055.00
c) SPECIAL EVENTS, CELEBRATIONS, WEDDINGS
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
− Harborside Fountain Park (Waterfront plaza only, per four (4) hour session $50.00100.00
− Louis Mentor Boardwalk $560.00600.00
− Stage (20’ x 24’) –Available Memorial Day-Labor Day (per day) $250.00275.00
22 | Page
(Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental Rates
− Harborside Fountain Park (Waterfront plaza only, per four (4) hour session $75.00150.00
− Louis Mentor Boardwalk $840.00885.00
− Stage (20’x24’) – Available Memorial Day-Labor Day (per day) $375.00400.00
d) ATHLETIC FIELD – RESERVATIONS
Per hour unless noted
− (Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL
• Youth Use $19.0020.00
• Adult Use $35.0040.00
− (Group B) COMMERCIAL $62.0065.00
• Game Fees
(i) Baseball/Softball $43.0050.00
(ii) Soccer $66.0070.00
(iii) Sand Volleyball $31.5035.00
e) OUTDOOR COURT – RESERVATION
Per hour unless noted
- (Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL – Rental
• Basketball Court (Per Half Court) $5.0010.00
• Pickleball Court $5.0010.00
• Tennis Court $10.0015.00
- (Group B) COMMERCIAL – Rental
• Basketball Court (Per Half Court) $7.5015.00
• Pickleball Court $7.5015.00
• Tennis Court $20.0025.00
f) LIONS TENNIS COURT LIGHTS
1 token (1 hour) $3.005.00
6 tokens (6 hours) $14.5020.00
g) BLUEBERRY PARK – P-PATCH ANNUAL RATE
Non-commercial gardening only.
− Raised Beds $15.0020.00
− 10’ x 20’ Beds $55.0060.00
− 16’ x 30’ Beds $80.0085.00
2. PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES
a) NEW PROGRAMS See Section 3, subsection (a)
b) ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 23 | Page
− VOLLEYBALL
• League Play (per team, per game) $32.0034.00
• Open Gym (Oct. – June) per person $5.00
• Sand Volleyball $32.0034.00
− BASKETBALL
• Men’s League Play (per team, per game) $74.0078.00
• Boy’s League Play (per team, per game) $44.0046.00
• Boy’s League (Individual Registration - per individual) $54.0057.00
- PICKLEBALL (Indoor Program)
• Drop In $4.005.00
• 10-Visit Punchcard $32.0040.00
− SOFTBALL
• Adult League Play (per team, per game) $51.4054.00
• Adult League – Players fee (per player, per game) $2.272.50
− TOURNAMENTS (BASEBALL/SOFTBALL AND SOCCER)
INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS
c) Lions – One Day $486.00515.00
d) Lions – Two Day $776.00815.00
e) Lions – Three Day $1,032.001,085.00
f) Pendergast – One Day $640.00675.00
g) Pendergast – Two Day $1,000.001,050.00
h) Pendergast – Three Day $1,213.001,275.00
STATE TOURNAMENTS*
i) Lions – One Day $677.00715.00
j) Lions – Two Day $1,010.001,060.00
k) Lions – Three Day $1,175.001,250.00
l) Pendergast – One Day $880.00925.00
m) Pendergast – Two Day $1,175.001,250.00
n) Pendergast – Three Day $1,393.001,475.00
*Regional and National Tournaments cost to be negotiated depending on field preparation requirements.
3. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AND RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS
a) PROGRAM FEE FORMULAS. Except for the Sr. Citizens Trip program, participant fees for activities
(programs, classes, events, etc.) promoted by the Sr. Citizen Center and the Recreation Division are
established by the following formulas:
− Activities when the instructor is on City payroll.
*Based on “Not-to-Exceed” rates
24 | Page
[(Total class hours including preparation) x (Instructor’s hourly wage) x (1.5 Administration
factor)] divided by (minimum # of students per activity)] + (the cost of group supplies divided by
minimum # of students) + Cost of individual class supplies, if applicable = Student class fee for
City of Bremerton Resident
− Activities taught by contracted instruction.
*Based on “Not-to-Exceed” rates
[(Price per student required by the Instructor less class supply fees) x (1.5 Administration
factor)] + Class supply fees = Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident.
− Non-Resident Fees for Recreational Programs.
For recreation classes, programs, and rentals – ranging from:
• $5.00 to $25.00 add on 25%
• $25.01 to $50.00 add a flat $6.25
• $50.01 to $100.00 add a flat $12.50
• $100.01 to $200.00 add a flat $25.00
• $200.01 to $400.00add a flat $50.00
• $400.01 to $750.00 add a flat $100.00
• $750.01 to $1,000.00 add a flat $150.00
• $1,000.00 + add a flat $200.00
b) SENIOR CENTER ACTIVITIES (AGE 55+)
Couples Membership is for two people, at least one needs to be 55 or better, who reside at the
same address.
Associate Memberships are for those individuals not yet 55 but still would like to participate in the
programs, trips and classes offered at the Center.
− Senior Citizen – City Resident annual membership $20.0025.00
− Senior Citizen – Non-Resident annual membership $35.0040.00
− Senior Center – City Resident Couples annual membership $32.0035.00
− Senior Center – Non-Resident Couples annual membership $52.0055.00
− Senior Center – City Resident Associate annual membership $32.0035.00
− Senior Center – Non-Resident Associate annual membership $52.0055.00
− Senior Center – Daily Drop-In Fee (Non-Class Activities, per person, per day)$4.005.00
c) SENIOR CENTER TRIPS Cost plus 25%
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 25 | Page
TABLE L POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTS $10.00
2. FINGERPRINTS – 1st Card $10.00$15.00
a) Each Additional Card $10.00$15.00
3. CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK $10.00
4.3. ALARM COMPLIANCE FEE
a) 1st False Alarm in any 1 Quarter $60.00
b) 2nd False Alarm in the same Quarter $80.00
c) 3rd False Alarm in the same Quarter or Subsequent Alarms in a Calendar Quarter
$160.00
5. SERVICE FEE FOR ANTI-HARASSMENT ORDER $50.00
6. SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS
a) Arrest Warrant $15.00 plus mileage
b) Subpoena $6.00 plus mileage
c) Preparation of return of service $5.00
Mileage (for each mile actually and necessarily traveled by a member of the Police Department in going to or returning from any
place of service, or attempted service) current business mileage rate allowed by the Internal Revenue Service.
7.4. TAXICABS
a) Taxicab Business Certificate $30.00/year
b) Taxicab Driver’s Certificate $30.00/year
c) Vehicle Decal $10.00/vehicle/year
d) Annual Renewal $30.00
e) Certificate Changes $10.00
f) Finger prints $10.00
g) WSP Background Check (effective 1/1/2019) $51.25
WSP Background Check (effective 7/1/2019) $71.25
8.5. CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS (Rates set by State subject to change)
a) New Permit (effective 1/1/2019) $49.25
b) Renewal Permit $32.00
c) Late Permit $42.00
d) Replacement $10.00
e) Firearm Dealer License $125.00
9.6. BODY WORN CAMERA RECORDINGS* per RCW 42.56.240(14) $60.00 per hour of
video
*Research and Redaction Processing – Processing requires full playback of each video by the
processing technician before redaction begins to verify the involvement of each party in the footage
and ensure the footage is redacted in accordance with Washington state law. Please keep this in mind
when requesting footage from multiple BWCs or for footage for long timeframes.
26 | Page
TABLE M PUBLIC RECORD FEES
1. Copy or Print - Maximum size is 11x17 $0.15/page
2. Scan – Maximum size is 11x17 $0.10/page
3. Electronic Files or Attachments uploaded to email, cloud-based data storage service or other means of
electronic delivery $0.05/4 files
4. Transmission of Public Records in an Electronic Format $0.10/GB
5. Customized service charge for requests requiring the use of information technology expertise per RCW
42.56.120(3) Actual Costs
6. CD/DVD $2.00
7. Digital Storage Media or Device Actual Cost
8. Postage or Delivery Charges Actual Costs
9. Certified copies of public records. The maximum size for photocopies is 11x17 $5.00 per document
10. Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos, Drawings, and Maps (Black and White) $8.00/page or
Actual Costs when performed by a Vendor
11. Color GIS Plotted Maps $5.00/sq. ft.
12. Other Documents:
a) Medical Records $19.00
b) Fire Incident/Investigation Reports $8.00
c) Budget
− (Hard Copy) $70.00
− (Electronic Version) $10.00
d) Annual Report
− (Hard Copy) $35.00
− (Electronic Version) $10.00
In addition to the above fees, each department may establish fees for records that do not fall into one of
the above categories. Each department and the City Clerk shall have the department's fee schedule
available for inspection upon request.
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 27 | Page
TABLE N PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. RIGHT-OF WAY USE PERMITS FEES
a) Type A (Short Term Use) Regular (Misc. Construction) $345.00
− Dumpster – Individual personal use NO CHARGE
− Dumpster – Commercial/Construction $345.00
b) Type B (Disturbance of ROW)
− Sidewalk Repairs (2 inspections) NO CHARGE
− Driveway, Transverse Street Patch and Spot Patches (2 inspections) $345.00
− Frontage Improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, etc.); Longitudinal Street Patch;
and Utility Installation $4.32/ft with a $260.00 minimum
− New Street $7.34/ft with a $880.00 minimum
− Water & Sewer Mains & Laterals (ROW Permit) (2 inspections) $345.00
− Additional Inspection $86.00$92.00/hour + equipment
charges
c) Type C (Long Term Use)
− Application and Processing $345.00
− Annual Renewal $80.00
d) Type D Regular (Franchised Utility Routine Maintenance) $173.00
e) Plan Reviews $0.27/foot of improvement with $173.00 minimum
2. ADDITIONAL WORK $86.00$92.00/hour + Equipment
Charges
3. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION $1,900.00
4. BMC 10.24 HOUSEMOVING/OVERSIZE LOADS $690.00+$75.00/mile to .10 of a mile
5. BANNER FEE INSTALL/REMOVAL $212.00$350.00
6. SIGN CREATION $COST
7. TRAFFIC CONTROL $86.00$92.00/hour + Equipment
Charges
8. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
a) Barricades if not returned $30.00$70.00/barricade
b) Barricades $20.00 per barricade per day
c) Cones, if not returned or damaged $16.00$22.00/cone
d) Cones $2.00 per cone per day
e) Signs, if not returned or damaged $215.00$300.00/sign
f) Signs $18.00 per sign per day
g) Labor Rate Hourly (equipment not included) $86.00$92.00
28 | Page
9. BLOCK PARTY STREET CLOSURE $25.00$50.00
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 29 | Page
TABLE O TAX & LICENSE
1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES
a) BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation
− Non-Profit $25.00/60 days
− Professional Fundraiser $675.00/60 days
b) BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $265.00/yr or $70.00/30 days
c) BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $700.00/yr
d) Dancers $100.00/yr
e) BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $150.00/veh/yr
f) BMC 5.16 Peddlers $75.00/yr or $25.00/30 days
g) BMC 5.36 Special Events $100.00/event
h) BMC 5.08 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $100/yr
i) Site Relocation $50.00
j) BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $400.00/30 days
2. BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
a) BMC 5.02 $75.00/yr
30 | Page
TABLE P TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1. TOWER LEASE - APPLICATION, RENEWAL AND ASSIGNMENT FEE $541.00
2. CABLE FRANCHISE APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSIT1 $3,660.00
1Actual cost will be based on staff time. City may require additional deposit(s) up to $3,500 per deposit if funds
are exhausted.
3. MASTER PERMIT - APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEE DEPOSITS2 $5,228.00
2Actual cost will be based on staff time plus legal review. City may require additional deposit(s) up to $5,000
per deposit if funds are exhausted.
4. TELECOM LICENSE FEE – ONE TIME $226.00
2025 2026 Rates & Fees 31 | Page
TABLE Q TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
1. VEHICLE TAB FEE $20.00
Property Tax Ordinance: Rates and Fees General: Rates and Fees
Utilities
Presentation to discuss the 2026 Property Tax and the 2026 Rates and Fees for the City of Bremerton
2026 Property Tax Ordinance
Agenda Packet Page 284
2026 Property Tax
Ordinance - Continued
Summary
•Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) – 2.44%
•Assessed Valuation 2026 - $6,348,932,150
•Assessed Valuation 2025 - $6,346,068,345
•YOY Change in AV $2,863,805
•Estimated Total Levy Limit General - $9,450,072
•Estimated Total Levy Limit EMS - $3,253,363
•New Construction - $128,432
•New Construction EMS - $43,613
•2015 Public Safety Voted Bonds Paid Off in 2025
•2010 Public Safety Voted Bonds - $900,000 debt service 2026
•2027 Maturity $1,615,000 outstanding
Rates and Fees – General
Agenda Packet Page 288
Rates and Fees –
Utility
•Agenda Packet Page 325
Rates and Fees –
Utility – Cont.
•Agenda Packet Page 325
•Water – 3%
•Wastewater 3%
•Stormwater 3%
•GFC’s Based on CCI Index 5
year Average - 3.86%
•Other Charges based on actual
time and materials
Rates and Fees – Utility – Cont.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: 10/22/2025
Ordinance to amend and re-establish Utility
Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges for
2025-2026 Mid Biennium
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/05/2025
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Mike Riley
Phone: (360) 473-5303
SUMMARY: Ordinance to amend and re-establish the 2025-2026 mid-biennium Utility Assessments,
Rates, Fees, and Charges.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. ____ ; 2. Exhibit A; and 3. Power Point Presentation
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Misc. Fees and Charges were adjusted by
change in the Construction Cost Index for all urban consumers, Seattle June to June 5 year average
at 3.86%. The Utility rates are incorporated in the 2025-2026 Proposed Mid-Biennium Budget.
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. ____ amending and re-establishing Assessments, Rates, Fees, and
Charges for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other related services for 2025-2026 mid-biennium.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 04/19/2024
C4
1
2025-2026 Utilities Rates and Fees
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending and reestablishing the
assessments, rates, fees and charges established in Ordinance No.
5501 regarding rates and fees relating to the Department of Public
Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other
related services.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and reestablish the assessments,
rates, fees, and charges (“Rates and Fees”) relating to the Department of Public Works and
Utilities for general facility charges and water, wastewater, stormwater, and other related
services established in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5501; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rate Tables established. Rates and fees for services relating to the
Department of Public Works and Utilities for general facilities charges and water, wastewater,
stormwater, and other related services, as established in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 5501, are
hereby amended and reestablished in their entirety as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this
ordinance, said exhibit is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Rate Tables – Effective Date. The amendment and
reestablishment of rate tables as set forth in Section 1 above shall be effective January 1, 2026.
SECTION 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance
are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the
correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the _____ day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
2
2025-2026 Utilities Rates and Fees
Approved this ________ day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ _________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2025.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2025.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
2025
GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES
Water based on meter size average normal flow
5/8" x 3/4" 7,207.00$
1" 7,207.00$
1" Commercial 9,874.00$
1 1/2" Commercial 57,654.00$
2" Commercial 57,654.00$
3" Commercial 144,137.00$
4" Commercial 288,272.00$
Greater than 4"
5/8" x 3/4" 8,411.00$
1" 8,411.00$
1" Commercial 10,431.00$
1 1/2" Commercial 58,882.00$
2" Commercial 58,882.00$
3" Commercial 151,410.00$
4" Commercial 302,816.00$
Greater than 4"
Stormwater (per IHSU)1,730.00$
CONNECTION FEES
Water Connection Fees*Inside Outside
5/8" x 3/4" 4,738.00$ 4,876.39$ 7,107.00$ 7,315.00$
1" 4,873.00$ 5,133.69$ 7,310.00$ 7,701.00$
1 1/2" 11,827.00$ 14,034.86$ 17,741.00$ 21,052.00$
2" 12,240.00$ 14,683.00$ 18,360.00$ 22,025.00$
3" 28,630.00$ 30,359.40$ 42,945.00$ 45,539.00$
4" 30,776.00$ 32,749.69$ 46,164.00$ 49,125.00$
6" 38,631.00$ 41,796.08$ 57,947.00$ 62,694.00$
8" 45,026.00$ 54,262.53$ 67,539.00$ 81,394.00$
10" 53,192.00$ 67,392.36$ 79,788.00$ 101,089.00$
12" and greater
Wet Tapping (Water Main Only, excluding excavation & backfill)*
4" 4,796.00$ 5,617.96$ 7,194.00$ 8,427.00$
6" 5,277.00$ 6,260.31$ 7,916.00$ 9,390.00$
8" 6,529.00$ 7,914.11$ 9,794.00$ 11,871.00$
10" 9,686.00$ 11,840.74$ 14,529.00$ 17,761.00$
12" 10,922.00$ 13,463.05$ 16,383.00$ 20,195.00$
** Greater than 12"
149,701.00$
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
Inside Outside City Limits
7,485.00$
7,485.00$
10,255.00$
59,879.00$
59,879.00$
1,797.00$
299,399.00$
Case by Case basis
Wastewater based on meter size average normal flow
8,736.00$
8,736.00$
10,834.00$
61,155.00$
61,155.00$
157,254.00$
314,505.00$
Case by Case basis
Actual time & material + equipment
Actual time & material + equipment
1 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
Wet Tapping (Water Main to Property Line)*Inside Outside
2" - fire service 6,403.00$ 7,216.71$ 9,605.00$ 10,825.00$
4" 15,753.00$ 17,402.46$ 23,630.00$ 26,104.00$
6" 15,690.00$ 17,351.60$ 23,535.00$ 26,027.00$
8" 17,861.00$ 20,050.76$ 26,792.00$ 30,076.00$
10" 21,869.00$ 25,133.26$ 32,804.00$ 37,700.00$
12" 24,122.00$ 28,171.28$ 36,183.00$ 42,257.00$
** Greater than 12"
Fire Hydrant Installation*
6" x 8" and smaller - service to property line 19,814.00$ 22,093.21$ 29,721.00$ 33,140.00$
6"x 10" - service to property line 19,998.00$ 22,288.41$ 29,997.00$ 33,433.00$
6"x 12" service to property line 20,157.00$ 22,504.08$ 30,236.00$ 33,756.00$
PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION FEES
Engineering Services**Inside Outside
Plan Check Fees
Main Extensions: per foot 0.66$ 0.67$ 0.99$ 1.01$
BUT not less than 465.00$ 468.00$ 698.00$ 702.00$
(Includes hydrants and appurtenances
and connection to water system)
Pump Stations 3,716.00$ 3,742.00$ 5,574.00$ 5,613.00$
Fireline Extension 190.00$ 190.00$ 285.00$ 285.00$
Irrigation Systems 186.00$ 187.00$ 279.00$ 281.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) plus equipment 93.00$ 94.00$ 140.00$ 141.00$
Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees ***
Preliminary Drainage Plans
Residential Development 743.00$ 748.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development 730.00$ 748.00$ N/A N/A
Plus per IHSU 23.00$ 23.00$
Final Detailed Drainage Plans
Residential Development (per lot)
0 - 20 Lots 80.00$ 80.00$ N/A N/A
21 - 50 Lots 70.00$ 70.00$ N/A N/A
51 - 100 Lots 60.00$ 60.00$ N/A N/A
100+ Lots 50.00$ 50.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 557.00$ 749.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development
per IHSU 50.00$ 50.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 557.00$ 748.00$ N/A N/A
Resubmittal Fees
First Resubmittal No Charge No Charge N/A N/A
Subsequent Resubmittal 557.00$ 748.00$ N/A N/A
Actual time & material + equipment
2 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
Field Inspection Fees Inside Outside
Water main extensions (per foot) 1.73$ 1.77$ 2.60$ 2.66$
but not less than: 605.00$ 621.00$ 908.00$ 932.00$
Pump Station 3,456.00$ 3,550.00$ 5,184.00$ 5,325.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) 86.00$ 89.00$ 129.00$ 134.00$
Wastewater Fees **
Lateral Connection at P/L 173.00$ 178.00$ 260.00$ 267.00$
Lateral Connection at Main 432.00$ 444.00$ 648.00$ 666.00$
Conveyance Facility Ext. (Per Foot) 3.45$ 3.55$ 5.00$ 5.00$
but not less than: 864.00$ 887.00$ 1,296.00$ 1,331.00$
Pump Station 3,456.00$ 3,550.00$ 5,184.00$ 5,325.00$
Miscellaneous (per hour) 86.00$ 89.00$ 129.00$ 134.00$
Storm Drainage Inspection Fees ***
Residential Development (per lot) 93.00$ 94.00$ N/A N/A
Non-Residential Development (per IHSU) 46.00$ 47.00$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 376.00$ 376.00$ N/A N/A
Conveyance Facility Extensions (per foot) 2.15$ 2.15$ N/A N/A
Minimum Charge 557.00$ 561.00$ N/A N/A
Unscheduled Inspections**** (per site visit) 93.00$ 94.00$ N/A N/A
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES
Office Services Inside Outside
New Account 26.00$ 27.00$ N/A N/A
Account Maintenance 5.00$ 5.00$ N/A N/A
Past Due Notice 3.50$ 3.50$ N/A N/A
Lien Recovery Charge 147.00$ 147.00$ N/A N/A
Utility/Lien Search Fee (Manual) per parcel 39.00$ 40.00$ N/A N/A
Park Reservation Fee (non-refundable) 210.00$ 231.00$ N/A N/A
Field Services
Pavement Restoration Charge
(refundable, if assessed and not required)
Asphalt Patch 2,359.00$ 2,595.00$ 3,539.00$ 3,893.00$
Concrete Patch 1,681.00$ 1,849.00$ 2,522.00$ 2,774.00$
Asphalt Trench 4,321.00$ 4,753.00$ 6,482.00$ 7,130.00$
Concrete Trench 5,179.00$ 5,697.00$ 7,769.00$ 8,546.00$
3 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
Field Services (continued)Inside Outside
County Road Permit N/A N/A N/A Cost Cost
Water Meter Installation
3/4" & 1" 191.00$ 195.00$ 286.50$ 292.50$
1-1/2" & 2" 300.00$ 307.00$ 450.00$ 460.50$
3" and greater
Water Meter Reactivation 72.00$ 98.00$ 108.00$ 147.00$
Water Meter Reinstallation 191.00$ 195.00$ 287.00$ 293.00$
Water Meter Deactivation 72.00$ 98.00$ 108.00$ 147.00$
Water Meter Tampering
Tampering Fee 517.00$ 529.00$ 776.00$ 794.00$
Tampering Repair
Fire Service - Detector, Meter & MXU 844.00$ 1,011.00$ 1,266.00$ 1,517.00$
Storz Adapter 728.00$ 728.00$ 1,092.00$ 1,092.00$
Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on
(Customer Request)
Regular Hours 72.00$ 98.00$ 108.00$ 147.00$
After Hours 302.00$ 335.00$ 453.00$ 503.00$
Delinquency Notice 28.00$ 30.00$ N/A N/A
Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on
(Delinquent Accounts)
Regular Hours 72.00$ 98.00$ N/A N/A
After Hours 302.00$ 335.00$ 453.00$ 503.00$
Flow and Pressure Test (Uncertified)
3/4" & 1" meters only 136.00$ 139.00$ 204.00$ 209.00$
1-1/2" & 2" meters only 245.00$ 251.00$ 368.00$ 377.00$
Larger than 2"
Meter Test Fee (based on meter size)
3/4" & 1" 300.00$ 307.00$ 450.00$ 461.00$
1-1/2" & 2" 409.00$ 419.00$ 614.00$ 629.00$
3" or greater
Utility Plant Locates
Regular Hours N/C N/C N/C N/C
After Hours 273.00$ 273.00$ 410.00$ 410.00$
Emergency N/C N/C N/C N/C
Utility Compliance Specialist
Inspection 123.00$ 130.00$ 185.00$ 195.00$
Administration Fee 55.00$ 56.00$ 83.00$ 84.00$
Utility Labor Rate Hourly (Eqp not included) 109.00$ 112.00$ 164.00$ 168.00$
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
4 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES
General Service - Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Meter Size
5/8 x 3/4 inches 16.36$ 16.85 24.54$ 25.28$
1 inch 18.70$ 19.26 28.08$ 28.92$
1 1/2 inch 26.60$ 27.40 39.90$ 41.10$
2 inch 35.74$ 36.81 53.58$ 55.19$
3 inch 67.80$ 69.83 101.67$ 104.72$
4 inch 125.97$ 129.75 188.94$ 194.61$
6 inch 447.87$ 461.31 671.81$ 691.96$
8 inch 1,635.97$ 1,685.05 2,453.99$ 2,527.61$
10 inch 5,834.84$ 6,009.89 8,752.24$ 9,014.81$
12 inch 21,935.03$ 22,593.08 32,902.54$ 33,889.62$
Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF)
Per HCF/Month 2.83$ 2.91 4.23$ 4.36
Non - Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF) 2.56$ 2.64 3.82$ 3.93
Fire Protection - Monthly Service Charge
Service Size
1 inch 33.97$ 34.99 49.20$ 50.68
1 1/2 inch 51.11$ 52.64 74.07$ 76.29
2 inch 66.45$ 68.44 96.30$ 99.19
3 inch 73.21$ 75.41 106.13$ 109.31
4 inch 79.81$ 82.20 115.66$ 119.13
6 inch 99.61$ 102.60 144.36$ 148.69
8 inch 132.61$ 136.59 192.20$ 197.97
10 inch 185.58$ 191.15 268.98$ 277.05
12 inch 265.13$ 273.08 384.24$ 395.77
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 5.11$ 5.26 7.41$ 7.63
- For Usage Other Than Firefighting
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen - Monthly Service Charge
General Service - meter size 5/8" x 3/4" 9.82$ 10.11 14.72$ 15.17
General Service - meter size 1" 11.22$ 11.56 16.85$ 17.35
Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF)
Per HCF/Month 1.70$ 1.75 2.54$ 2.62
Temporary/Construction Meter
1" Meter
Deposit 600.00$ 600.00 900.00$ 900.00$
Base Fee (per month) 18.07$ 18.61 27.00$ 28.00$
Set Up Fee & Removal Fee 408.00$ 408.00$ 612.00$ 612.00$
5 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES (CONTINUED)Inside Outside
Temporary/Construction Meter (continued)
Hydrant meter (3" Meter)
Deposit 4,000.00$ 4,000.00 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Base Fee (per month) 65.51$ 67.48 98.27$ 101.22$
Set Up Fee 408.00$ 408.00$ 612.00$ 612.00$
Equipment Loss/Damage
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 2.47$ 2.54 3.69$ 3.80
City Parks and Recreation Dept. - Irrigation
Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.23$ 1.27
Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex - Irrigation
Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.68$ 1.73
RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Single Family
Base Charge (per account)39.98$ 41.18 59.97$ 61.77
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37$ 5.53 8.04$ 8.28
Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. on 1 Meter
Base Charge (per unit)31.66$ 32.61 47.50$ 48.93
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37$ 5.53 8.04$ 8.28
Multi - Family
Base Charge (per unit)31.66$ 32.61 47.50$ 48.93
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37$ 5.53 8.04$ 8.28
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Base Charge (per account)23.99$ 24.71 35.98$ 37.06
Commodity Charge (per HCF)3.22$ 3.32 4.82$ 4.97
Commercial I
Base Charge (per account)59.10$ 60.87 88.66$ 91.32
Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.53$ 5.70 8.28$ 8.53
Commercial II
Base Charge (per account)59.53$ 61.32 89.30$ 91.98
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 7.08$ 7.29 10.62$ 10.94
Commercial III
Base Charge (per account) 60.12$ 61.92 90.20$ 92.91
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 8.64$ 8.90 12.96$ 13.35
Actual Time, Materials & Equipment
6 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES (CONTINUED)
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Commercial IV
Base Charge (per account) 60.71$ 62.53 91.07$ 93.80
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 10.22$ 10.53 15.31$ 15.77
Commercial V
Base Charge (per account) 66.78$ 68.78 100.20$ 103.21
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 12.77$ 13.15 19.15$ 19.72
Commercial VI
Base Charge (per account) 73.45$ 75.65 110.20$ 113.51
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 15.95$ 16.43 23.93$ 24.65
Commercial VII
Base Charge (per account) 80.80$ 83.22 121.21$ 124.85
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 18.63$ 19.19 27.96$ 28.80
Commercial Special
Base Charge (per account) 88.88$ 91.55 133.33$ 137.33
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 24.93$ 25.68 37.35$ 38.47
Beverage Production
Base Charge (per account) 60.12$ 61.92 90.20$ 92.91
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 5.62$ 5.79 8.41$ 8.66
Commercial Fountains - Separately Metered
Base Charge (per account) 59.10$ 60.87 88.66$ 91.32
Commodity Charge (per HCF) 1.82$ 1.87 2.73$ 2.81
Septage Disposal (per gallon of tank capacity) 0.30$ 0.31 0.45$ 0.46
Leachate Per Gallon of Tank Capacity
Individual Residential Grinder Pumps
Grinder Pump Surcharge 12.89$ 13.28 19.33$ 19.91
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Grinder Pump Surcharge 7.73$ 7.97 11.60$ 11.95
RETAIL STORMWATER RATES
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Residential I (Single Family/Duplex)
Base Charge (per account) 23.33$ 24.03 N/A N/A
Exception: Duplex
with 2 Meters (per account) 11.67$ 12.02 N/A N/A
7 of 8
2025
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026
2026
RETAIL STORMWATER RATES (CONTINUED)
Monthly Service Charge Inside Outside
Residential II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
50% of the Res I Base Charge 11.67$ 12.02 N/A N/A
Residential III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
100% of the Res I Base Charge 23.33$ 24.03 N/A N/A
Commercial I
Base Charge (per IHSU) 23.33$ 24.03 N/A N/A
Commercial II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
50% of the Comm I Base Charge 11.67$ 12.02 N/A N/A
Commercial III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU)
100% of the Comm I Base Charge 23.33$ 24.03 N/A N/A
Public School Districts (per account) 23.33$ 24.03 N/A N/A
Low-Income (1) Senior and Low-Income(1) Disabled Citizen
Base Charge (per account) 14.00$ 14.42 N/A N/A
Multi - Family & Commercial Rate Adjustment
Water Quality (per IHSU) 2.57$ 2.65 N/A N/A
Water Quantity (per IHSU) 7.80$ 8.03 N/A N/A
Stormwater Penalty
New Multi - Family & Commercial
development without on-site detention
Charge (per IHSU) 5.16$ 5.31 N/A N/A
(1) Low-Income defined as Gross Earned Income of $40,000 or less. Low-Income is a 40% discount.
*Pavement Restoration Charge May Also Be Assessed
** Fees include original review and one resubmittal review.
Additional reviews will be charged at miscellaneous hourly rate (above).
*** Does not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot.
**** (Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of a project and billed
after the final site inspection. Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final
8 of 8
Property Tax Ordinance: Rates and Fees General: Rates and Fees
Utilities
Presentation to discuss the 2026 Property Tax and the 2026 Rates and Fees for the City of Bremerton
2026 Property Tax Ordinance
Agenda Packet Page 284
2026 Property Tax
Ordinance - Continued
Summary
•Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) – 2.44%
•Assessed Valuation 2026 - $6,348,932,150
•Assessed Valuation 2025 - $6,346,068,345
•YOY Change in AV $2,863,805
•Estimated Total Levy Limit General - $9,450,072
•Estimated Total Levy Limit EMS - $3,253,363
•New Construction - $128,432
•New Construction EMS - $43,613
•2015 Public Safety Voted Bonds Paid Off in 2025
•2010 Public Safety Voted Bonds - $900,000 debt service 2026
•2027 Maturity $1,615,000 outstanding
Rates and Fees – General
Agenda Packet Page 288
Rates and Fees –
Utility
•Agenda Packet Page 325
Rates and Fees –
Utility – Cont.
•Agenda Packet Page 325
•Water – 3%
•Wastewater 3%
•Stormwater 3%
•GFC’s Based on CCI Index 5
year Average - 3.86%
•Other Charges based on actual
time and materials
Rates and Fees – Utility – Cont.