The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/11/2026 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKET 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. ______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280 A M E N D E D WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2026 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 Council Conference Room 603 will be open to the public to attend the Study Session in-person, but there will be no opportunities for input. However, public questions or comments may be submitted at any time to City.Council@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 February 18, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda, or as indicated.  Members of the public may click the link below to join the webinar: https://bremertonwa-gov.zoom.us/j/8738266756?pwd=ZWlMVnVYbFBHYjY5U1RJUmFreDFXUT09  Or One tap mobile: US: +12532050468,,87318266756#,,,,*857582# or +12532158782,,87318266756#,,,,*857582#  Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833 Webinar ID: 873 1826 6756; Passcode: 857582 A. AGENDA BILL BRIEFINGS 1. Confirm Reappointment of Vanessa Acierto to BKAT Community Advisory Committee 2. 2026 Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance Renewal with Safety National Casualty Corporation 3. Public Works Agreement for the Purchase of Playground Equipment from Buell Recreation LLC for the Kitsap Lake Park Playground 4. National Fitness Campaign Court Grant Application 5. Utility Relocation Agreements for Site B and Site C with Kiewit for WSDOT Fish Passage Project B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Discussion on Transportation Benefit District – Council President Jane Rebelowski and Financial & Administrative Services Director Mike Riley Item pulled 2. Continued Discussion on Public Comment and Public Recognition – Council President Jane Rebelowski and City Attorney Kylie Finnell 3. Audit Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 2/2/26) – Chair Christy Cammarata 4. Public Safety Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 2/3/26) – Chair Michael Goodnow 5. Regional and Other Committee/Board Briefings 6. General Council Business (Only as necessary, as time allows) C. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Item added 1. 15-Minutes to discuss Potential Litigation as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1) (i) No action anticipated D. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 11, 2026 Confirm Reappointment of Vanessa Acierto to BKAT Community Advisory Committee COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 18, 2026 Department: Bremerton Kitsap Access Television Presenter: Colleen Miko Phone: (360) 473-5014 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the reappointment of Vanessa Acierto to BKAT Community Advisory Committee as a City of Bremerton staff representative. The term expires December 31, 2026. Vanessa has been serving on the Committee since late 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Application for City Boards/Commissions/Committees FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointment of Vanessa Acierto to BKAT Community Advisory Committee as City of Bremerton staff representative for the term expiring December 31, 2026. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 04/19/2024 A1 Application for City Boards / Commissions / Committee Date 1/13/2026 First Name Vanessa Middle Name Field not completed. Last Name Acierto Home Phone Address1 Address2 Field not completed. City Silverdale State WA Zip 98383 Occupation Human Resources Analyst I Employer City of Bremerton Work Address1 345 6th Street Work Address2 Field not completed. City Bremerton State WA Zip 98311 Work Phone 3606890390 Fax Field not completed. Email vanessa.acierto@ci.bremerton.wa.us Education Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from University of Washington, Seattle Certificate in Business Administration, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle Local References Angela Hoover, 360-473-5323 I am interested in serving: Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee (Bremerton Kitsap Access Television/BKAT) Is this an application for reappointment? Yes If yes, how many years have you served on this commission or committee? First appointed August 2022 How long have you lived in Bremerton over 25 years total (moved and came back) Why are you applying for this appointment? I continue to be impressed by the hard work and dedication BKAT Staff and BKAT members have for the programming they put out and have been honored to be even a small part of that. I hope to be reappointed and serve another term. Which of your personal and / or professional interests prompted you to apply for this appointment? I like the idea of BKAT bridging the gap between area citizens and those at City Hall and all the City Staff in the communities BKAT covers. Have you ever served on any other Bremerton board, commission, committee or task force? If yes, please list. I served as the staff person for City Council's Public Safety Committee for over 2 years. Please list your qualifications for this appointment (include skills, activities, training, education): The classes I took to earn my Certificate in Business Administration provided me with much training that could be very useful serving on this advisory committee. I learned about interpersonal communication, negotiation, project management, budgeting and accounting for businesses, advertising and communicating with a broad audience through various forms of media. My Political Science degree has taught me effective writing skills, critical thinking skills, an ability to always see both sides of an issue, and the appreciation of the difference even just one person can make in society. I've spent over 15 years working in the legal field where I've learned to have compassion, patience, and attention to detail. I've worked with many different types of people from varying socioeconomic backgrounds which will help me keep an open mind and be particularly inclusive on this committee. Of course, now that I've had a chance to serve on the Committee, I have that experience to help me as well. What are your community interests (committee, organizations, special activities)? I am very open in my interests! I like the idea of helping BKAT target younger community members in order to grow support early from them and hopefully, gain some lifelong supporters. I have spent the last two year acting with various community theaters in Kitsap County, which takes quite a bit of my time. I also enjoy attending events around town, such as Story Night and Bremerton First Fridays. Please list any accommodations you need to perform volunteer duties: N/A We welcome your willingness to serve Bremerton. Pursuant to the Washington Public Disclosure Act, (RCW 42.56), this form constitutes a public record and is subject to public release upon request. Prior to release, the following information may be redacted pursuant to RCW 42.56.250(3): Residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, identicard numbers, and emergency contact information of employees or volunteers of a public agency, and the names, dates of birth, residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information of dependents of employees or volunteers of a public agency. Applicants are considered for appointment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, marital or veteran status, or the presence of any disability. Updated 3/24/2020 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 11, 2026 2026 Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance Renewal with Safety National Casualty Corporation COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 18, 2026 Department: City Attorney’s Office / Risk Management Presenter: Kylie Finnell / Melisa Folmer Phone: (360) 473-5302 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Code authorizes the Risk Management Specialist, with the approval of the City Attorney, to bind insurance and requires City Council approval for the continuation of any bound coverage that exceeds an annual premium of $25,000. Excess Workers’ Compensation for 2026 has been bound with Safety National Casualty Corporation at an annual premium of $158,312. The self-insured retention (“SIR”) for first responders is $1,000,000 and for all other employees $500,000. There are no changes in retentions or policy forms from last year. ATTACHMENTS: Aon’s Details of Coverage / Policy Term / Premium FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the Risk Management Fund for this expenditure for 2026. STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the purchase of the 2026 Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance with Safety National Casualty Corporation in the amount of $158,312. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 04/19/2024 A2 Proprietary & Confidential Details of Coverage / Policy Term / Premium 6 Expiring Program 2025-26 Renewal Program 2026-27 Insurance Company Safety National Casualty Corporation A.M. Best's Rating AA++ XV Exposure and Rate Work Hours 678,031 713,116 Rate Worker Hours 0.222 0.222 Premiums Deposit $150,523 $158,312 TRIA Included Included Limit Each Accident Workers' Compensation Statutory Statutory Employers Liability $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Retentions Each Occurrence Except $500,000 $500,000 Police, Firefighters and Volunteer Law Officers $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Endorsements (Not Limited too) 1) Voluntary Compensation X X 2) Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act X X AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 11, 2026 Public Works Agreement for the Purchase of Playground Equipment from Buell Recreation LLC for the Kitsap Lake Park Playground COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 18, 2026 Department: Parks & Recreation Presenter: Tim Barker Phone: (360) 473-5428 SUMMARY: This project will install a new accessible playground at Kitsap Lake Park. The playground equipment was selected through public feedback collected via a survey, and the Commission approved the final design on January 27th. The equipment pricing has been competitively solicited and publicly awarded through the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement. The Total Project Cost: $192,211.66 includes equipment, safety surfacing, installation, ADA ramp, freight, and sales tax. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Public Works Agreement; 2) Buell Recreation LLC Quote #G25-0579A; 3) Playground Design Drawings FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The playground equipment ($192,211.66) is funded through a $311,370 Department of Commerce grant. STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Public Works Agreement for the purchase and installation of playground equipment from Buell Recreation LLC in the amount of $192,211.66, sales tax included; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 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 Buell Recreation LLC (“Contractor”), whose mailing address is 7327 SW Barnes Rd. #601, Portland, OR 97225. The parties agree as follows: 1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following services for the City:  Playground equipment  Layout, mark, and dig all holes required for the installation of play equipment  Install posts and platforms per the manufacturer’s specifications  Supervise play equipment installation and assembly during the Community Build Day as identified in quotation ##G25-0579A, attached hereto as Attachment A, which is incorporated herein.  Install new ADA ramp per specs in new location to fit use zones of play equipment  Certified Engineered Wood Fiber Surfacing – Blow In 2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within 90 calendar days from the date of issuance of the City’s Notice to Proceed. 3. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Contractor the total amount of $192,211.66, which includes Washington State Sales Tax, for the work and services contemplated in this agreement. The City shall pay the Contractor ninety percent (90%) of the Contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the work by the City, and the remainder upon fulfillment of the conditions listed below and throughout this agreement. A. No Performance Bond. Because this contract including applicable sales tax is $150,000 or less, and pursuant to Chapter 39.08 RCW, the Contractor, in lieu of providing the City a performance bond, has elected to have the City retain the final ten percent (10%) of the Contract amount for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of final accep tance, or until receipt of all necessary releases from the State Department of Revenue and the State Department of Labor & Industries and until settlement of any liens filed under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later. B. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and extra work and materials furnished without the City’s written approval. If Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 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. C.. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL PAYMENT (EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL PRECLUDE ALL CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS MADE. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall be at all times acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Contractor shall secure at its expense, and shall be responsible for all payments of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor, officer, agents, employees and sub-contractors. The Contractor shall also secure all applicable business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract services, including all required licenses for Contractor's officers, agents, employees and sub- contractors. 5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreement for good cause. “Good cause” shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events: A. The Contractor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the Contract work. B. The Contractor’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in this agreement. C. The Contractor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to sub- contractors or for material or labor. D. The Contractor’s persistent disregard of federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations. E. The Contractor’s filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt. If the City terminates this agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any further monies due under this agreement until the Contract work is completed. 6. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall file a “Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages” with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 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 Federal, Davis-Bacon Wage Rates current on the bid opening date. The Davis-Bacon wage rates are available at the US Department of Labor website. 7. CHANGES. The City may issue a written work change directive for any change in the Contract work during the performance of this agreement. If the Contractor determines, for any reason, that a change order is necessary, Contractor must submit a written change order request to the City’s project manager within two (2) business days of the date the Contractor knew or should have known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the City determines that the change increases or decreases the Contractor’s costs or time for performance, the City will make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement with the Contractor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Contractor shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving a written work change directive or change order from the City. If the Contractor fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Contractor waives its right to make any claim or submit subsequent change order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the Contractor disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Contractor must complete the change order work; however, the Contractor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below: A. Procedure and Protest by the Contractor. If the Contractor disagrees with anything required by a work change directive or change order, including any direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the City, the Contractor shall: 1. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City; 2. Supplement the written protest within fourteen (14) calendar days with a written statement that provides the following information: a. The date of the Contract’s protest. b. The nature and circumstances that caused the protest. c. The provisions in this agreement that support the protest. d. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested work and how that estimate was determined. e. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change or disruption if the Contractor is asserting a schedule change or disruption. The Contractor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time incurred as a result of the protested work. The City shall have access to any of the Contractor’s records needed for evaluating the protest. Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 3. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest. B. Contractor’s Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has ordered. C. Contractor’s Acceptance of Changes. The Contractor accepts all requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A change order that is accepted by Contractor as provided in this section shall constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change. D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides, the Contractor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any written order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the procedures of this section, the Contractor completely waives any claims for protested work and accepts form the City any written order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). F. Liens. In the event that there are any liens on file against the City of Bremerton, the City of Bremerton shall be entitled to withhold final or progress payments to the extent deemed necessary by the City of Bremerton to properly protect the outstanding lien claimants until proper releases have been filed with the City Clerk 8. CLAIMS. The Contractor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other than change orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims. Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time, whether under this agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Contractor unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable provisions of this agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim is set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the date Contractor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a Contractor’s written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section 7.A.2.a.-e. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY. Contractor must, in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is complete. 9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within one year from the date of the City’s acceptance of the Contract work. When defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the Contractor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the corrections and the Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order to accomplish the correction. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officer, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the City’s sole negligence. The City’s inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor’s work when c ompleted shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Contractor’s liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor’s negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR’S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 11. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by the Contractor, its agents, representative, employees, sub-consultants or sub- contractors. Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 Before beginning work on the project described in this agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate; and B. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The Contractor’s insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk 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. Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 The Contractor shall, upon demand of the City, deliver to the City copies of such policy or policies of insurance and the receipts for payment of premiums thereon. 12. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of Contractor shall not discriminate in any employment practice on the basis of age (40+), sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation/gender identity, marital status, military status, or the presence of any physical, mental or sensory disability. B. ADA Statement. The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to both employment and admission to participation in the programs, services and activities of the City of Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment will be provided. C. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this agreement. D. Work Performed at Contractor’s Risk. Contractor shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of this agreement. All work shall be done at Contractor’s own risk, and Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances, shall not be constructed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect F. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and Contractor under any of the provisions of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County, Washington. G. Attorney’s Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW 39.04.240, in any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties’ performance of this agreement, each party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the City’s right to indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement. H. Written Notice. All communications regarding this agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered o r certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated on this agreement. I. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. J. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Contractor. K. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect. L. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this agreement, together with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative of the City, and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any manner this agreement. This agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire agreement between the parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this agreement conflict with any language contained in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail. M. Mutually Bound. Contractor and Subcontractor are mutually bound by the terms of this agreement. Terms of this agreement will apply to the work of any subcontractor. The Contractor shall assume toward the subcontractor all obligations and responsibilities the Owner, under this agreement, assumes toward the Contractor, and the Subcontractor shall assume toward the Contractor all obligations and responsibilities which the Contractor, under this agreement, assumes towards the Owner. N. Suspension & Debarment. For contracts involving Washington State and Federal funding, Contractor hereby certifies, by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any State or Federal department or agency. Contractor shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Contractor enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Contractor agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. O. Solicitation of Minority Business. Per RCW 35.22.650, Contractor agrees that the contractor shall actively solicit the employment of minority group members. Contractor further agrees that the contractor shall actively solicit bids for the subcontracting of goods or services from qualified minority businesses. Contractor shall furnish evidence of the contractor's compliance with these requirements of minority employment and solicitation. Contractor further agrees to consider the grant of subcontracts to said minority bidders on the basis of substantially Public Works Agreement (short form) Rev. 04/2023 equal proposals in the light most favorable to said minority businesses. The contractor shall be required to submit evidence of compliance with this section as part of the bid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this agreement. CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON Print Name: Print Name: Title: Title: DATE DATE Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON: Attn: Ryan Bittner, CFO Attn: Tim Barker Buell Recreation LLC City of Bremerton 7327 SW Barnes Rd. #601 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97225 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 Fax: 866-597-0033 | 1-800-266-1250 | 1-800-266-1250 Buell Recreation LLC 7327 SW Barnes Rd #601 Portland, OR 97225 USA +15039221650 admin@buellrecreation.com Quote ADDRESS Bremerton Parks & Recreation 680 Lebo Blvd Bremerton, WA 98310 SHIP TO Kitsap Lake Park 1978 Price Rd NW Bremerton, WA, 98312 QUOTE #DATE EXPIRATION DATE G26-0054 01/28/2026 02/27/2026 PROJECT SALES REPRESENTATIVE Kitsap Lake Park- Option C2 Rachel Gora ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT Play Structure BCI Burke Structure per proposal #907-207726-7 1 116,801.00 116,801.00T Sourcewell Discount Sourcewell Contract Discount per Contract #010521-BUR 1 -17,520.15 -17,520.15T Discount Special Pricing Discount 1 -11,417.85 -11,417.85T Freight Shipping 1 7,750.00 7,750.00T Supervised Install Layout equipment per Proposal 907-207726-7, and install posts and platforms (does not include attaching slides). Includes offloading equipment if arrives at same time as installation and disposal of spoils/trash offsite. Supervised install $4,000/day - for City to install panels and attachments. If not done after one day can extend for additional, or they can continue on their own. Does not include any installation warranty on the portions installed by others. City will need to provide their own tools. Does not include any additional labor after posts and platform installation. (One day is included in the total) Install new ADA ramp per specs in new location to fit use zones of playground equipment. ***Excludes demo of existing ADA ramp*** Prevailing Wages 1 67,067.00 67,067.00T EWF 144 CY Certified Engineered Wood Fiber Surfacing- Blown- In Note: Freight is calculated based on one truckload required. Depending on the maximum EWF weight, loads may be shortened or additional freight costs may be required due to potential wet weather impacting the EWF weight. 1 13,338.00 13,338.00T Buell Billing 1 0.00 0.00 Fax: 866-597-0033 | 1-800-266-1250 | 1-800-266-1250 ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT Please make Purchase Order to Buell Recreation and email to your representative or sales@buellrecreation.com. Acceptance of this proposal indicates your agreement to the terms and conditions stated herein. Please provide the following with your signed quote/purchase order: -Payment per terms if required -Color selections -Shipping Address -Site Contact Name and Phone Number -Any Other Key information requested Terms Govt. Govt. Purchase Order with payment due 30 days from product shipment and services such as installations due upon completion. Equipment may be invoiced separately from other services and are payable in advance of project/supply or completion. No retainage. 1 0.00 0.00 Lead Time Lead Time is approx. 4-5 weeks from receipt of your completed order and payment (if required). Lead times can fluctuate so please inquire upon time of ordering. We are making every effort to increase our capacity and improve our lead times. 1 0.00 0.00 Bond Performance Bond is not included- if required add 3% to the overall bid. 1 0.00 0.00 Sourcewell Contract Sourcewell Publicly Solicited Contract #: 010521-BUR Bremerton Member ID#: 20107 https://www.sourcewell-mn.gov/ 1 0.00 0.00 PLACING AN ORDER: Upon ordering please review and return this signed quote with a copy of your purchase order and tax exempt certificate, if applicable. Please mark any changes on the quote such as billing/shipping address, drivers contact and color selection. IF INSTALLATION IS INCLUDED: This quote does not include Prevailing Wages, Davis Bacon Wages or Performance Bonds unless noted. Owner is responsible for site preparation unless otherwise noted. SUBTOTAL 176,018.00 TAX (9.2%) 16,193.66 TOTAL $192,211.66 Accepted By Accepted Date AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 11, 2026 National Fitness Campaign Court Grant Application COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 18, 2026 Department: Parks & Recreation Presenter: T. Barker Phone: (360) 473-5428 SUMMARY: The Parks & Recreation Department is requesting support to apply for a grant to provide partial funding for the development and installation of a fitness court at Evergreen Rotary Park. Outreach and feedback from the PROS plan showed a desire for more fitness-related amenities within our park system. This product provides the ability for residents to utilize free fitness equipment along a busy pathway within the community. The space also allows the ability for various types of classes to be programmed on the second half of the court, such as tai chi, yoga, or similar. Applying for the grant does not lock the city into purchasing the equipment if awarded. ATTACHMENTS: 1) NFC Health Impact Fact Sheet; 2) NFC 2026 Muni Briefing Deck; 3) NFC Funding Slide FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The grant is for $40,000 towards the purchase and installation of the court. Additional fundraising will occur through donations, sponsorships and/or offset by the Parks Capital fund. No general fund tax support is being requested currently. Full buildout cost ranges between $200,000-$275,000 depending on amenities, the exact design is yet to be determined. STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the National Fitness Campaign Grant Application; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to finalize and submit the application with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 04/19/2024 A4 National Fitness Campaign Partnership Health Impact Fact Sheet 1. Physical Activity & Preventable Disease ● Physical inactivity is linked to at least 35 chronic conditions — including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, breast and colon cancer, depression, and cognitive decline.¹ ● In the United States, insufficient physical activity contributes to ~110,000 premature deaths annually and roughly $117 billion in avoidable health‑care costs each year.² ● Increasing moderate-to-vigorous activity by just 10 minutes per day could prevent more than 100,000 deaths annually.³ ● One U.S. analysis estimated that 1.1 million cardiovascular disease cases and $5.4 billion in direct medical expenditures were associated with inactivity.⁴ Sources: 1. Booth et al., Prog Cardiovasc Dis (2017) 64(1): 12‑27 PubMed 28814614 2. CDC, “Physical Activity: Key Facts,” 2023 (cdc.gov) 3. Saint‑Maurice et al., JAMA Intern Med (2022) 182(3): 231‑238 (dceg.cancer.gov) 4. Pratt et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc (2000) 32(9 Suppl): S605‑S615 PubMed 15454355 2. Quality of Life, Mental Health & Activity ● A meta‑analysis found that adults meeting recommended physical activity levels had ~25% lower risk of depression compared to those who were inactive; even at about half those activity levels the risk reduction was ~18%.⁵ ● Regular physical activity significantly reduces the risk of anxiety: a meta-analysis across 11 cohorts found increasing physical activity was associated with up to 16% lower risk of anxiety, with stronger reductions (~49%) in certain sub‑groups.⁶ Older adults engaging in higher levels of physical activity can gain an additional 6.3 years of healthy life (good self‑rated health) and 2.9 years without chronic disease between ages 50‑75, compared with inactive peers.⁷ A study of seniors found that those who were more physically active enjoyed years of self‑reported good health and years without difficulty in daily activities, compared to sedentary older adults.⁸ Sources: 5. Systematic review/meta‑analysis on physical activity & depression: PMC 9008579 6. Meta-analysis on physical activity & anxiety: PubMed 40534999 7. Older adults: additional years of healthy life (OUP Academic) (academic.oup.com) 8. Seniors’ quality of life and daily function (PMC) (PMC 3978479) National Fitness Campaign Partnership Health Impact Fact Sheet 3. Built Environment & Behavior / Culture ● Built environments that encourage walking and social interaction promote social cohesion and emotional well‑being, reinforcing mental‑health resilience across communities.⁹ ● A strong body of evidence shows that walkability, mixed land use, safe streets, and access to green/open space are positively correlated with physical activity and lower obesity rates.¹⁰ ● In U.S. cities, each 10 % increase in land‑use mix is associated with a 25 % lower prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults aged 50‑75.¹¹ ● A review of 169 empirical studies found that nearly 90 % reported beneficial relationships between built-environment features (parks, trails, sidewalks, connectivity) and activity or weight outcomes.¹² ● Multiple longitudinal and intervention-based studies now show that intentionally modifying the built environment (e.g., creating walkable routes, adding exercise facilities, improving destination accessibility) leads to measurable increases in physical activity, providing strong proof that built environments do change behavior.¹³ Sources: 9. Coffee et al., Health Place (2013) 21: 163-169 PubMed 23501378 10. Sallis et al., Health Place (2012) 18(5): 795‑803 PubMed 28784183 11. Frank et al., Am J Prev Med (2008) 35(2): 114‑122 PubMed 18541175 12. Papas et al., Obesity Reviews (2007) 8(2): 115‑129 PubMed 22897546 13. Smith et al., Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (2022) 19: 142 IJBNPA NATIONAL FITNESS CAMPAIGNCAMPAIGN BRIEFING Healthy Community this Year to welcome 1000 Healthy Communities by 2026 CELEBRATING 750TH NOW FUNDED America’s Largest Public-Private Wellness Partnership OUR MISSION : to Build Healthy Communities USA Switzerland Japan FranceIsrael UK Austria 85 75 80 70 $1,000 $5,000 $10,000 Life Expectancy vs Health Expenditure TO MAKE WORLD CLASS FITNESS FREE WHY WE DO IT UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM AMERICA IS FACING A HEALTH CRISIS CAUSED BY SEDENTARY LIFE- STYLES AND CITIES DESIGNED FOR CARS. USA SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER ON HEALTHCARE WITH POOR RESULTS. BECOMING THE SOLUTION WHEN COMMUNITIES ARE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT WELL- BEING, HEALTH OUTCOMES CHANGE! BROUGHT TO YOU BY MULTI-SITE FUNDING FOR HEALTH IMPACT HEALTHY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING PLANNING PHASING LAYOUTS PROJECTIONS SCORES MAPPING TRAILS 80% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 78% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 84% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 92% HEALTHY SITE SCORE BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES MULTI-SITE PHASING FOR HEALTH IMPACT HEALTHY SITE SCORE (HSS) STUDIO A COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY WELLNESS PROGRAM WHAT WE DOCAMPAIGN OVERVIEW AMBASSADOR TRAINING MOBILE APP PUBLIC ART LAUNCH & PRESS DESIGN & PLANNING GRANT FUNDING INSTALLATION EXPERT CONSULTING STUDIO HIIT YOGA ZUMBA DANCE STRETCH KICKBOXING TAI -CHI OUTDOOR WELLNESS CENTER CONFIGURATION: FITNESS COURT® STUDIO COMMUNITY WELLNESS PROGRAMMING WELCOMES ENTIRE COMMUNITY MAYORS WELLNESS SERIES COMMUNITY WELLNESS HUB OUTDOOR WELLNESS CENTER CONFIGURATION: FITNESS COURT® CORE SQUAT PUSH LUNGE PULL AGILITY BEND 7 MOVEMENT FULL BODY WORKOUT FUNCTIONAL TRAINING SYSTEM DIGITALLY ACTIVATED Coach in your Pocket WORLDS BEST OUTDOOR GYM ART EVERY FITNESS COURT IS A WORK OF ART WORK WITH LOCAL ARTISTS NFC DESIGN STUDIO WORLD RENOWN ARTIST GALLERY KEITH HARING | JEAN MICHEL BASQUIAT Custom Art Work with the in-house NFC Art Studio Team Fitness Court Art Unique design included in your state campaign Fitness Court Art Offerings Front Wall Unlocked for Additional Artwork Support your Local Artist Community with a $5,000 Grant to the Artist provided by NFC! Local Artist Invite a Local Artist to create a mural that represents your community! Additional Funding Required. Example Art: Will be customized for your city Additional Funding Required. Example Art: Will be customized for your city Example Art: to be conﬁrmed at Award EXTENDED SEASONAL USE UV & SUN PROTECTION INTEGRATED DESIGN ENHANCED AESTHETICS MADE IN USA LONG LASTING MATERIALS FITNESS COURTS & FITNESS COURT STUDIOS NOW AVAILABLE FOR SHADE WORLDS BEST OUTDOOR GYM JUST GOT COOLERNEW! NFCCAMPAIGN IMPACT BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BE A PART OF THE NATIONAL FITNESS CAMPAIGN AMERICA’S LARGEST PUBLIC PRIVATE WELLNESS PARTNERSHIP HEALTH BENEFITS MORE TIME OUTDOORS, IMPROVED MENTAL & PHYSICAL WELLBEING HEALTHY INFRASTRUCTURE PLACES DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE NOT CARS BUILDING COMMUNITY CREATING A WELLNESS CULTURE THAT IS SOCIAL, CONNECTED AND FUN! REDUCED HEALTHCARE COSTS HEALTHIER, HAPPIER, PEOPLE WE’RE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE 2026 CAMPAIGN NATIONAL FITNESS CAMPAIGN 200 NEW PARTNERS 2026 STATEWIDE CAMPAIGN JOIN THE CAMPAIGN LEADERSHIP SUPPORT SITE WITH IMPACT FUNDING MATCH QUALIFY FOR GRANT STEP 1 STEP 3STEP 2 STEP 4 NFC Grant Requirements Program Qualiﬁcation LEADERSHIP SUPPORT SHARE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BUILD CONSENSUS / CONFIRM FEASIBILITY MUNICIPAL LEADER SUPPORT STEP 1 92% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 88% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 90% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 97% HEALTHY SITE SCORE STUDIO SITES WITH IMPACT Supported by NFC’s Expert Consulting Services, Identify Site Locations that Meet Criteria for Funding Qualiﬁcation & Health Impact STEP 2 NFC HEALTHY SITE SCORE NATIONAL INDEX & DATASET EXPERT CONSULTING FOR LOCATING SUCCESSFUL OUTDOOR WELLNESS HUBS Participate in Virtual Workshop led by NFC Expert Consultants to receive data & qualiﬁcation information regarding your public spaces. See how your municipality or school benchmarks vs national averages. HEALTHY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING • VISIBLE • CONNECTED • ACCESSIBLE • HSS HEALTHY SITE SCORE POWERED BY FUNDING MATCH NFC GUIDES FUNDING PLAN STEP 3 GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE: $30,000-$60,000 PER SITE LOCAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT $160,000-$270,000 per site, pending program conﬁguration & installation method QUALIFY FOR GRANT SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION A. PRE-APPLICATION PHASE B. GRANT AWARD C. BUILD/SITE PLAN D. LAUNCH LOCAL CAMPAIGN STEP 4 JOIN US LET’S BUILD HEALTHY COMMUNITIES TOGETHER Discussion - Q&A NEXT STEP DISCUSSED AT NEXT STEP: 1. SITE WORKSHOP & HEALTHY SITE SCORE REVIEW 2. FEASIBILITY & ALIGNMENT WITH LOCAL PRIORITIES 3. FUNDING REQUIREMENT DETAILS AND GRANT PROGRAM & AVAILABILITY FOR YOUR STATE 4. NON-BINDING GRANT QUALIFICATION PROCESS SCHEDULE VIRTUAL SITE REVIEW WORKSHOP LED BY NFC EXPERT CONSULTANTS TO EXPLORE FEASIBILITY HSS HEALTHY SITE SCORE TITLE TITLENATIONAL FITNESS CAMPAIGN 84% HEALTHY SITE SCORE 92% HEALTHY SITE SCORE VISIBLE1Site locations must be recognizable with high visibility. 3 CONNECTED Site locations must be integrated with pedestrian infrastructure. 2 ACTIVE Site locations must be heavily trafficked and centrally located. Design & Planning Consulting Sites with Impact QUALIFY SITE LOCATIONS FOR FUNDING PLANNING PHASING SCORES MAPPING TRAILSPROJECTIONSLAYOUTS STEP 2 2026 CAMPAIGN FUNDING REQUIREMENT PHASE 1: NFC PROGRAM FUNDING The Fitness Court® and National Campaign Services NFC GRANT FUNDING AWARD (if selected and approved) Optional Fitness Court® Additions: Art & Shade • FITNESS COURT® & NATIONAL CAMPAIGN SERVICES See GPR Milestone 2 PHASE 2: ASSEMBLY FUNDING • CONCRETE SLAB (Slab Dimensions 38’x38’ - refer to drawings) Can be performed in-house, in-kind or by contractor (separate agreement) See GPR Milestone 5 • FITNESS COURT® ASSEMBLY NFC Approved Network (separate agreement) See GPR Milestone 6 Fitness Court® & Assembly Total Program Funding Estimate After $30,000 Grant Funding (if selected and approved) **Assumes concrete pad costs of $25,000 (national average) and includes Fitness Court® Art $175,000 ($30,000) $145,000 est. $0-25,000 $30,000 with prevailing wage rates: $32,000 **$200,000 PHASE 1: NFC PROGRAM FUNDING The Fitness Court® Studio and National Campaign Services NFC GRANT FUNDING AWARD (if selected and approved) Optional Fitness Court® Studio Additions: Art & Shade • FITNESS COURT® STUDIO & NATIONAL CAMPAIGN SERVICES See GPR Milestone 2 PHASE 2: ASSEMBLY FUNDING • CONCRETE SLAB (Slab Dimensions 38’x73’ - refer to drawings) Can be performed in-house, in-kind or by contractor (separate agreement) See GPR Milestone 5 • FITNESS COURT® STUDIO ASSEMBLY NFC Approved Network (separate agreement) See GPR Milestone 6 Fitness Court® Studio & Assembly Total Program Funding Estimate After $30,000 Grant Funding (if selected and approved) **Assumes concrete pad costs of $45,000 (national average) and includes Fitness Court® Art $210,000 ($30,000) $180,000 est. $0-45,000 $37,750 with prevailing wage rates: $39,750 **$262,750 Fitness Court® Art (included)Fitness Court® Art (included)Custom Art (+$10,000)Custom Art (+$10,000)Local Artist Program (+$25,000)Local Artist Program (+$25,000)Shade Structure*Shade Structure* FITNESS COURT® *funding requirements available upon request *funding requirements available upon requestNote: powder-coating color and included art design dependent on campaign sponsor Note: powder-coating color and included art design dependent on campaign sponsor AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: February 11, 2026 Utility Relocation Agreements for Site B and Site C with Kiewit for WSDOT Fish Passage Project COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 18, 2026 Department: PW&U Presenter: Bill Davis Phone: (360) 473-2312 SUMMARY: The WSDOT Fish Passage Program removes barriers along state routes that prevent salmon from migrating upstream. These barriers are oftentimes culverts, which are removed and replaced with bridges. WSDOT has contracted with Kiewit Infrastructure West (Kiewit), a design- build contractor, to design and construct fish barrier improvements at five sites along SR3 and SR 16 near Sinclair Inlet. Two of these sites, Site B and Site C, will require relocation of City water and sewer utilities. Utility relocation agreements between the City and Kiewit for the design and relocation of these utilities have been developed for each site. The work at Site C will be done in 2026 and at Site B in 2027. Currently these agreements include only design costs and will be amended at a future time to include construction costs, which are still being developed. The design fee for Site B is $ 190,000. The design fee for Site C is $125,000. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Map; 2) Site B Utility Relocation Agreement; 3) Site C Utility Relocation Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): These agreements will be paid from the Water and Wastewater funds in 2026 and 2027. The total estimated design fees are $315,000 and are allocated as follows: Water fund = $173,000; Wastewater fund = $142,000. Construction fees will be determined at a later time and the agreements will be amended to incorporate those costs. STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Utility Relocation Agreements with Kiewit in the total amount of $315,000; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreements with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 04/19/2024 A5 Site CSite B WSDOT FISH BARRIER PROJECT SITES B AND C This Utility Relocation Agreement (the Agreement) is made and entered into between Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (KIEWIT) and the above-named Utility (UTILITY), collectively the “Parties” and individually the “Party.” Recitals 1. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is planning an improvement along ______________________________________ which consists of the removal and replacement of five existing culverts with fish passage structures (referred to as sites), per the project titled above; and has contracted with KIEWIT to perform the necessary improvements (theexhib Project). The project site included as part of this agreement is as follows: Site ID WDFW Site ID US / SR Name County Site A 990168 SR 3 Gorst Creek Kitsap County Site B 991585 SR 3 / SR 16 UNT to Gorst Creek Kitsap County Site C 991670 SR 16 Kabelac Creek Kitsap County Site D 990270 SR 16 UNT to Ross Creek Kitsap County Site E 15.0201 0.90 SR 166 Olney Creek Kitsap County 2. The WSDOT has granted an “Assignment/Delegation of Utility Permit/Franchise Rights and Obligations” dated ______________ to KIEWIT regarding WSDOT Utility Permit/Franchise Numbers below and as shown in Exhibit A. Site ID WDFW Site ID Utility Owner Franchise Number Included as part of this Agreement Site B 991585 City of Bremerton 30497 Yes Site C 991670 City of Bremerton 30314 No 3. In connection therewith, it is necessary to design and remove and/or relocate and/or construct certain UTILITY facilities (the Work) to facilitate the Project. Utility Relocation Agreement No. 6 – Site B SR 3/SR 16/SR 166, Gorst Vicinity – Remove Fish Barriers Project (Contract No. 9920) City of Bremerton 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 City of Bremerton City of Bremerton Construction Responsibility: City of Bremerton Klijhn Design Responsibility: □ Type 1 □ Type 2 WSDOT #9920 RFP Utility Designation: Cost Responsibility: Utility Name & Address: Contractors Name & Address: SR 3/SR 16/SR 166 02/26/2024 Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. 33930 Weyerhaeuser Way, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98001 X x 4. In order to facilitate the completion of the Work, KIEWIT will provide all materials, equipment, labor, contract administration, and any other efforts required to perform the following for facilities owned by UTILITY: 5. In order to facilitate the completion of the Work, UTILITY will provide all materials, equipment, labor, contract administration, and any other efforts required to perform the following for facilities owned by UTILITY: 6. As defined in the conformed Request for Proposals (RFP) of WSDOT Project 9920 dated October November 26, 2024, the following Party is of the Type noted above and is entirely responsible for the cost to complete all aspects of the work for UTILITY facilities: 7. Both KIEWIT and UTILITY will perform their respective duties in a timely manner so that the design & construction is completed is completed for Site B to The Final Relocation Agreement supersedes any and all versions of the Draft Utility Relocation Agreement of the same Number, and between the same Parties for the same Project designated above. Now, therefore, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, as well as the attached Exhibits which are incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plans and Special Provisions 1.1. Program Guide: The “Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal Aid Highway Projects” shall determine and establish the definitions and applicable standards for this Agreement. By this reference this document is adopted and made a part of this Agreement as if fully contained herein. 1.2. Betterment: A betterment is an improvement to UTILITY facilities not required by code, regulation, standard industry practice, or any other applicable regulation. If any of the Work constitutes a betterment as defined in the “Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal Aid Highway Projects”, the UTILITY is solely responsible for the costs of such improvement. 1.3. The Party performing the construction agrees to perform the work in accordance with: □ The Plans identified in Exhibit B □ The Special Provisions in Exhibit C (if applicable) UTILITY agrees that is solely responsible for ensuring that all Plans and Special Provisions meet UTILITY’s standards, codes, and regulations. In the event of a discrepancy between UTILITY’s standards, codes, and regulations and those of WSDOT, those of UTILITY shall prevail unless it is determined by WSDOT that this condition will present a hazard to the safety and comfort of the traveling public. □Design □Design Review □Protect in Place □Removal □Relocation □Construction □Field Inspection □Betterments □As-Built Survey □As-Built Review □Franchise/Permit Application/ □Permanent Material Supply for Construction Amendment □Design □Design Review □Protect in Place □Removal □Relocation □Construction □Field Inspection □Betterments □As-Built Survey □As-Built Review □Franchise/Permit Application/ □Permanent Material Supply for Construction Amendment □KIEWIT □UTILITY x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2. Construction, Inspection, and Acceptance 2.1. UTILITY agrees to disconnect/reconnect and or deactivate/activate its facilities upon reasonable notice to UTILITY as requested by KIEWIT when such action is required to be performed by UTILITY. The Parties agree to define disconnect/reconnect and or deactivate/activate requirements, including notification and response, in Exhibit C. UTILITY facilities not removed pursuant to this Agreement shall remain the ownership, operation and maintenance responsibility of UTILITY. 2.2. Salvage: All materials removed from UTILITY’s facilities shall become the property of UTILITY and disposed of by UTILITY, unless otherwise specified in Exhibit C. Arrangements to salvage certain materials for later usage by either Party shall be specified in Exhibit C. 2.3. If KIEWIT is to perform the Work, UTILITY shall furnish an inspector in a timely manner to observe the Work and verify that all standards, codes, and regulations are being met as described in Section 1.3. If UTILITY is to perform the Work, KIEWIT shall supply an inspector in a timely manner to observe the Work and verify that all improvements are compatible with the overall design, phasing, and construction of the Project. 2.4. The Party performing the construction agrees to promptly notify the other Party upon completion of the Work. 2.5. If KIEWIT is performing the Work, UTILITY shall, within five (5) working days of being notified that the Work is completed: (a) deliver a letter of acceptance to WSDOT, or (b) deliver to WSDOT written reasons why the Work does not comply with the previously approved Plans and Special Provisions. UTILITY agrees to work diligently and in good faith with KIEWIT to resolve any issues so as not to delay the Project. If all issues are resolved, UTILITY agrees to deliver to WSDOT a letter of acceptance as provided herein. 2.6. If UTILITY is performing the Work, KIEWIT shall, within five (5) working days of being notified that the Work is completed: (a) deliver a letter of acceptance to UTILITY, or (b) deliver to UTILITY written reasons why the Work does not comply with the previously approved Plans and Special Provisions. KIEWIT agrees to work diligently and in good faith with UTILITY to resolve any issues so as not to delay the Project. If all issues are resolved, KIEWIT agrees to deliver to UTILITY a letter of acceptance as provided herein. 2.7. If either Party does not respond within five (5) working days as provided in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, the Work and the administration thereof will be deemed accepted by the other Party, and the Party performing the Work shall be released from all future claims and demands except for latent defects to the extent allowed by Washington Law. 2.8. Upon completion and acceptance of the Work pursuant to Sections 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7, to the extent allowed by Washington law, UTILITY agrees that it shall be solely responsible for all future ownership, operation, and maintenance costs of its facilities, without KIEWIT or WSDOT liability or expense. 2.9. KIEWIT will prepare the final construction “as-built” survey and documentation in general conformance with WSDOT’s Construction Manual. KIEWIT will maintain one set of plans as the official “as-built” set, then make notations in red of all plan revisions typically recorded per standard WSDOT practice, as directed by WSDOT’s Construction Manual. Once the approving Party has accepted the Work per Section 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7, KIEWIT will provide one (1) reproducible set of “as-builts” to UTILITY. 3. Payment 3.1. The Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement agrees that it shall be responsible for the actual direct and related indirect costs of the efforts to perform the Work by the Party(ies) identified in the following Recitals: 3.2. The total cost to achieve completion of the Work is estimated to be: □ Unspecified □ $190,000 (Design) □ $______ (Construction) to be included in amended Utility Agreement An itemized estimate of costs for the Work is: □ Not included □ Included in Exhibit D □ To be included in the Final Utility Agreement 3.3. If monies are deemed to be due from one Party to the other as required by the terms of this Agreement, the Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement agrees to pay the other Party the actual cost for its participation in the completion of the Work for UTILITY. The Party identified in Recital 6 shall make any payments due to the other Party within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving request for payment. 3.4. Should the Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement fail to make payment to the other Party according to the terms of this Agreement, the Party owed unpaid monies shall have the right to terminate this Agreement after reasonable notice to the defaulting Party and an opportunity to cure. 4. Change in Work or Cost Increase 4.1. Increase in Cost: In the event unforeseen conditions, not caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of KIEWIT, WSDOT, its or their agents, or a third party, require an increase in the cost of the Work as specified in Section 3.2, a change in the agreed total cost will: □ Be paid One Hundred Percent (100%) by KIEWIT □ Be paid One Hundred Percent (100%) by UTILITY □ Be paid at a split cost as identified below: KIEWIT: _______________ Percent (____%) UTILITY: _______________ Percent (____%) A change to the total cost of the Work identified in Section 3.2 will only be considered if the actual cost to complete the Work is equal to or more than the following percentage over the value identified in Section 3.2 □ _______________ Percent (____%) □ Not Applicable □KIEWIT □UTILITY x x Recital 4 (KIEWIT) Recital 5 (UTILITY) x x x 4.2. If it is determined by the Party performing the Work that additional Work or a change in the Work is required, prior written approval must be secured from the Party identified in Recital 6. However, where the change is required to mitigate a Project emergency or safety threat to the traveling public, the Party performing the Work may direct the change without the approval of the Party identified in Recital 6. Proper notifications shall be made between both Parties of such changes as soon as possible thereafter. 4.3. Regardless of the Party performing the Work, UTILITY may request additions to the Work in writing. KIEWIT will review the request and accommodate the requested changes as elective changes, provided that a change does not negatively impact WSDOT’s transportation system and complies with the Standard Specifications, Project permits, state and/or federal law, applicable rules and/or regulations, and/or WSDOT design policies, and does not unreasonably delay critically scheduled Project contract activities. Costs to construct UTILITY facilities above and beyond the cost required for the scope of the Work will be paid for solely by UTILITY, regardless of the Party performing these additional activities. 5. Franchise of Permit 5.1. UTILITY shall apply for a new permit, franchise, or amendment to its current franchise for those new or modified UTILITY facilities that will be located within WSDOT’s right of way. After receiving the application, WSDOT will issue a new permit or a new or amended franchise, as applicable. 6. Right of Entry/Permits 6.1. KIEWIT agrees to provide copies of its Right of Entry Permits and Temporary Construction Easements with all privately owned lands, as requested by UTILITY. UTILITY may elect to perform its Work within the limits and restrictions of KIEWIT temporary construction easement. If UTILITY does not elect to perform its Work within the limits of KIEWIT temporary construction easements; UTILITY agrees to arrange for rights of entry upon all privately owned lands upon which UTILTY has a claimed property rights and which are necessary to perform the Work. UTILITY also agrees to obtain all necessary permissions for KIEWIT to perform the Work on such lands, which may include reasonable use restrictions on those lands. UTILITY agrees to provide the rights of entry and applicable permissions under this section to KIEWIT within ten (10) calendar days of entering into this Agreement. Upon completion of the Work on such lands, those rights of entry and permissions beyond the rights of entry and permissions granted by the WSDOT permit or franchise shall terminate. 6.2. KIEWIT agrees to provide copies of applicable permits that it has received to perform the work outside of this agreement, as requested. If applicable, UTILITY may elect to perform its Work under KIEWIT permits with the understanding all permit restrictions and conditions are met. It is the responsibility of the UTILITY to fully understand and comply with all KIEWIT permit conditions and requirements, including; but not limited to, performing the work within the identified boundaries and providing all necessary reports and documentation to support permit requirements and provide to KIEWIT in a timely manner after completion of Work. If UTILITY does not elect to perform its Work under KIEWIT permits; UTILITY agrees to obtain all necessary permits to perform the Work. If UTILITY elects for KIEWIT to perform any of the Work, UTILITY also agrees to obtain all necessary permit for KIEWIT to perform the Work. UTILITY agrees to provide the applicable permits under this section to KIEWIT within ten (10) calendar days of entering into this Agreement. Upon completion of the Work, those permits beyond the permissions granted by the issuing agencies shall terminate. 7. General Provisions 7.1. Indemnification: To the extent authorized by law, UTILITY and KIEWIT shall indemnify and hold harmless one another and their employees and/or officers from and shall process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, damages (both to persons and/or property), or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the one Party arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the other Party’s performance or failure to perform any aspect of this Agreement, provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) UTILITY and (b) KIEWIT, their respective employees and/or officers, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of UTILITY or KIEWIT, and provided further, that nothing herein shall require the UTILITY or KIEWIT to hold harmless or defend the other or its employees and/or officers from any claims arising from that Party’s sole negligence or that of its employees and/or officers. The terms of this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 7.2. Disputes: If a dispute occurs between the UTILITY and KIEWIT at any time during the prosecution of the Work, the Parties agree to negotiate at the management level to resolve any issues. Should such negotiations fail to produce a satisfactory resolution, the Parties agree to enter into arbitration and/or mediation before proceeding to any other legal remedy. Each Party shall be responsible for its own fees and costs. The Parties agree to equally share the cost of a mediator or arbiter. 7.3. Venue: In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties hereto agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in the State of Washington. Each Party shall be responsible for its own attorney’s fees and costs. 7.4. Termination: 7.4.1. Unless otherwise provided herein, KIEWIT my terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to UTILITY. 7.4.2. KIEWIT acknowledges and agrees that should it terminate this Agreement, such termination shall not relieve the Party identified in Recital 6 from its responsibility to ultimately pay for the design, removal, relocation and/or construction of UTILITY facilities so as not to delay or conflict with the Project. 7.5. Amendments: This Agreement may be amended by the mutual agreement of both Parties. Such amendments or modifications shall not be binding unless put in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties. 7.6. Independent Contractor: Both Parties shall be deemed independent contractors for all purposes, and the employees of each Party and any of its contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and the employees thereof, shall not in any manner be deemed to be the employees of the other Party. 7.7. Audit and Records: During the progress of the Work and for a period of not less than six (6) years from the date of final payment, both Parties shall maintain the records and accounts pertaining to the Work and shall make them available upon reasonable notice during normal business hours and as often as necessary, for inspection and audit by the other Party, Washington State, and/or Federal Government and copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to the Work will be furnished upon request. The requesting Party shall pay the cost of copies produced. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the record, accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained until any litigation, claim, or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit continues past the six-year retention period. 8. Waiver of Consequential Damages 8.1. Neither party will be liable to the other party for consequential damages of any nature or kind, including loss of profits/revenue and use. Damages based on actual costs incurred as a result of inexcusable delays on the reference Project are not consequential damages. 8.2. WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES. In no event shall either party hereto be liable to the other or obligated in any manner to pay to the other any special, incidental, consequential, punitive or similar losses or damages (including loss of profits, loss of production, loss of business opportunity or other consequential or indirect loss) based upon claims arising out of or in connection with the performance or non-performance of its obligations or otherwise under this Agreement, or the material inaccuracy of any representation made in this Agreement, whether such claims are based upon contract, tort, negligence, warranty or other legal theory; provided, however, that the waiver of this foregoing damages under this Section is intended to apply only to disputes and claims as between UTILITY and KIEWIT. Nothing in this Section shall limit the obligation of the UTILITY to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the KIEWIT Indemnitees, or the obligation of KIEWIT to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the UTILITY Indemnitees, for any consequential or punitive damages payable to third parties resulting from any act or circumstance for which the UTILITY or KIEWIT, as applicable, is obligated to indemnify hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DAY AND YEAR LAST WRITTEN BELOW. ATTACHMENTS: □ Exhibit A – Assignment/Delegation of Utility Permit/Franchise Rights & Obligations □ Exhibit B – Plans (as designed by KIEWIT) □ Exhibit C – Special Provisions □ Exhibit D – Cost Estimate - Design □ Exhibit D – Cost Estimate - Construction UTILITY __________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ By (Print Name) _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date KIEWIT __________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ By (Print Name) _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date x x 1 Assignment/Delegation of Utility Franchise/Permit Rights and Obligations This is a Limited Assignment of Rights and Delegation of Obligations (“Assignment”) by and between the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) and Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (“Design-Builder”). RECITALS 1. WSDOT entered into a design-build contract with Design-Builder, for a highway improvement project within the following locations in Kitsap County, Washington for the SR 3/SR 104/SR 303/SR 307/SR 308 Kitsap County – Remove Fish Barriers Project: a. State Route 3, Mile Post 41.52 to 59.55; b. State Route 104, Mile Post 16.55 to 22.95; c. State Route 303, Mile Post 6.63 to 6.90; d. State Route 307, Mile Post 1.34 to 1.45; e. State Route 308, Mile Post 0.94 to 2.16 2. The Project requires the relocation of utilities that are located on WSDOT right of way pursuant to certain Utility Permits or Franchises. 3. WSDOT determined that it is in the best interest of the State of Washington and the traveling public to temporarily assign certain rights and delegate certain obligations under the Utility Permits and Franchises to the Design-Builder for the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities for the Project. 4. Design-Builder agrees that WSDOT’s temporary assignment of rights and delegation of obligations under the Permits and Franchises will facilitate the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: In consideration of the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities located within state highway right of way in support of the Project, WSDOT does hereby assign, transfer, and delegate unto Design-Builder the Utility Permits and Franchises identified in Exhibit A, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. 1. This Assignment includes only those rights and obligations under the Permit or Franchise (and the General Provisions, Special Provisions, and Exhibits of the Permit or Franchise, if any) that are necessary or convenient for the Design-Builder to execute the Project. 2. This Assignment includes any amendment to, or replacement of, the Permit or Franchise (and the General Provisions, Special Provisions, and Exhibits thereto, if any) issued by WSDOT after the date of execution of this Assignment. 3. This Assignment does not include the right to amend, revoke, cancel, issue or otherwise modify the Permit or Franchise. 4. This Assignment is non-exclusive and WSDOT retains the right to exercise all rights and obligations under the Permit or Franchise. 5. This Assignment shall automatically terminate upon completion of the Project, unless terminated earlier by WSDOT in writing. EXHIBIT A 2 6. Design-Builder agrees that it shall be solely responsible for any causes of action or claims, if any, that arise between the Design-Builder and the Utility during the term of this Assignment; therefore, Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, will protect, save and hold harmless WSDOT, its authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages (both to persons and property), injuries or expenses of any nature whatsoever by reason of the acts or omissions of Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, arising out of or in connection with Design-Builder’s or its agents’, employees’, contractors’, successors’, or assigns’ acts or omissions related to this Assignment; provided, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent acts or omissions of (a) WSDOT’s authorized agents or employees and (b) Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts or omissions of Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns. This provision shall survive the termination of this Assignment. 7. The Design-Builder shall not assign or transfer the rights or obligations granted in this Assignment in any manner whatsoever, unless WSDOT consents thereto in writing. 8. WSDOT shall provide a copy of this Assignment to the Utility after it is executed by WSDOT and Design-Builder. 9. The Design-Builder shall exercise its rights and obligations granted in this Assignment in a reasonable and prudent manner. Design-Builder hereby accepts the rights and assumes the obligations from WSDOT as set forth above. WSDOT hereby assigns the rights and delegates the obligations as set forth above to Design-Builder. Title: Title: Dated: Dated: Area Manager 2/20/2024 2/26/2024 Olympic Region Utility Manager Bremerton/Kiewit Utility Relocation Agreement February 2026 Exhibit D – Cost Estimate for Design (Site B) Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT D – COST ESTIMATE FOR DESIGN GORST VICINITY - REMOVE FISH BARRIERS (C9920) UTILITY RELOCATION DESIGN WATER AND SEWER SITE B Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (KIWC) provides total cost proposal of $190,000 to complete the scope outlined in this proposal. Breakdown of cost includes: - $160,000 – Base Design (Lumpsum) - $30,000 – maintenance reserve for undefined scope that requires authorization by the City Site B • Two water mains running parallel to roadway alignment on either side of SR 16 (size unknown). Single water main service to parcel on north side of state route. • Single gravity sanitary sewer running parallel to roadway; side sewer to same parcel to north. Services shall include: • Work with City and Kiewit to refine concepts and phasing of work to maintain service during construction (assumed requirement). Water mains to be relocated over the top of the proposed culvert with presumably minimal cover requiring a variance. The gravity sewer will require replacement of a to-be-determined length to provide adequate capacity. • Meetings – as identified in the attached fee worksheet, shall include: • Bi-weekly meetings with WSDOT, akin to Task Force meetings to keep them informed on design development. • Owner Meetings – City of Bremerton to work through technical issues. • Kiewit and Team Meetings • Preparation of utility plans, profiles, details and specifications. Refer to fee spreadsheet for assumed number of plans. • KPFF will support the utility owners with the preparation of utility variances. Owner is responsible for submission to WSDOT. • Plan reviews will be limited to a constructability review performed by Kiewit prior, an over- the-shoulder review with WSDOT at the 60% design level. KPFF to resolve all comments from WSDOT and the utility owners and provide a formal submittal to WSDOT at 100%. Comments from the 1005 review will be resolved prior to RFC. Assumptions • Sewer to be replaced in kind with a gravity line. Design flows to be provided by the City of Bremerton; no modeling or calculations presumed. • Assumes that the RFC roadway paving and site prep drawings will require additional modifications to account for impacts including pavement removal and replacement or other misc. curb and gutter civil changes to accommodate the new utilities. Effort estimated at approximately 120 hrs of design and plan updates. Exclusions • Updates to plans beyond what is scoped herein to be addressed by others. This scope does not include any revisions to the current plans such as Site Preparation, TESC, or to address conflicts with drainage, for example. Bremerton/Kiewit Utility Relocation Agreement February 2026 Exhibit D – Cost Estimate for Design (Site B) Page 2 of 2 • This scope of services does not include calculations or modeling of the water distribution system. It is assumed that the main will be replaced in kind and any modifications will not have an appreciable impact on the performance of the system. Necessary modeling or calculations will be performed by the utility owner. • Additional traffic control plans to that already developed for Site C are excluded from the scope estimate. • Excludes updates to the stormwater system to accommodate the utility relocations. Additional effort and cost required for stormwater modifications to accommodate the utility relocation. • The RFC plans for other disciplines other than Roadway are already completed and work doesn’t cover updates to other RFC sheets. • Excludes any work associated with obtaining permits or environmental documentation This Utility Relocation Agreement (the Agreement) is made and entered into between Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (KIEWIT) and the above-named Utility (UTILITY), collectively the “Parties” and individually the “Party.” Recitals 1. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is planning an improvement along ______________________________________ which consists of the removal and replacement of five existing culverts with fish passage structures (referred to as sites), per the project titled above; and has contracted with KIEWIT to perform the necessary improvements (the Project). The project site included as part of this agreement is as follows: Site ID WDFW Site ID US / SR Name County Site A 990168 SR 3 Gorst Creek Kitsap County Site B 991585 SR 3 / SR 16 UNT to Gorst Creek Kitsap County Site C 991670 SR 16 Kabelac Creek Kitsap County Site D 990270 SR 16 UNT to Ross Creek Kitsap County Site E 15.0201 0.90 SR 166 Olney Creek Kitsap County 2. The WSDOT has granted an “Assignment/Delegation of Utility Permit/Franchise Rights and Obligations” dated ______________ to KIEWIT regarding WSDOT Utility Permit/Franchise Numbers below and as shown in Exhibit A. Site ID WDFW Site ID Utility Owner Franchise Number Included as part of this Agreement Site B 991585 City of Bremerton 30497 No Site C 991670 City of Bremerton 30314 Yes 3. In connection therewith, it is necessary to design and remove and/or relocate and/or construct certain UTILITY facilities (the Work) to facilitate the Project. Utility Relocation Agreement No. 6 – Site C SR 3/SR 16/SR 166, Gorst Vicinity – Remove Fish Barriers Project (Contract No. 9920) City of Bremerton 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 City of Bremerton City of Bremerton Construction Responsibility: City of Bremerton Klijhn Design Responsibility: □ Type 1 □ Type 2 WSDOT #9920 RFP Utility Designation: Cost Responsibility: Utility Name & Address: Contractors Name & Address: SR 3/SR 16/SR 166 02/26/2024 Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. 33930 Weyerhaeuser Way, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98001 X x 4. In order to facilitate the completion of the Work, KIEWIT will provide all materials, equipment, labor, contract administration, and any other efforts required to perform the following for facilities owned by UTILITY: 5. In order to facilitate the completion of the Work, UTILITY will provide all materials, equipment, labor, contract administration, and any other efforts required to perform the following for facilities owned by UTILITY: 6. As defined in the conformed Request for Proposals (RFP) of WSDOT Project 9920 dated October November 26, 2024, the following Party is of the Type noted above and is entirely responsible for the cost to complete all aspects of the work for UTILITY facilities: 7. Both KIEWIT and UTILITY will perform their respective duties in a timely manner so that the design & construction is completed is completed for Site C to The Final Relocation Agreement supersedes any and all versions of the Draft Utility Relocation Agreement of the same Number, and between the same Parties for the same Project designated above. Now, therefore, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, as well as the attached Exhibits which are incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plans and Special Provisions 1.1. Program Guide: The “Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal Aid Highway Projects” shall determine and establish the definitions and applicable standards for this Agreement. By this reference this document is adopted and made a part of this Agreement as if fully contained herein. 1.2. Betterment: A betterment is an improvement to UTILITY facilities not required by code, regulation, standard industry practice, or any other applicable regulation. If any of the Work constitutes a betterment as defined in the “Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal Aid Highway Projects”, the UTILITY is solely responsible for the costs of such improvement. 1.3. The Party performing the construction agrees to perform the work in accordance with: □ The Plans identified in Exhibit B □ The Special Provisions in Exhibit C (if applicable) UTILITY agrees that is solely responsible for ensuring that all Plans and Special Provisions meet UTILITY’s standards, codes, and regulations. In the event of a discrepancy between UTILITY’s standards, codes, and regulations and those of WSDOT, those of UTILITY shall prevail unless it is determined by WSDOT that this condition will present a hazard to the safety and comfort of the traveling public. □Design □Design Review □Protect in Place □Removal □Relocation □Construction □Field Inspection □Betterments □As-Built Survey □As-Built Review □Franchise/Permit Application/ □Permanent Material Supply for Construction Amendment □Design □Design Review □Protect in Place □Removal □Relocation □Construction □Field Inspection □Betterments □As-Built Survey □As-Built Review □Franchise/Permit Application/ □Permanent Material Supply for Construction Amendment □KIEWIT □UTILITY x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2. Construction, Inspection, and Acceptance 2.1. UTILITY agrees to disconnect/reconnect and or deactivate/activate its facilities upon reasonable notice to UTILITY as requested by KIEWIT when such action is required to be performed by UTILITY. The Parties agree to define disconnect/reconnect and or deactivate/activate requirements, including notification and response, in Exhibit C. UTILITY facilities not removed pursuant to this Agreement shall remain the ownership, operation and maintenance responsibility of UTILITY. 2.2. Salvage: All materials removed from UTILITY’s facilities shall become the property of UTILITY and disposed of by UTILITY, unless otherwise specified in Exhibit C. Arrangements to salvage certain materials for later usage by either Party shall be specified in Exhibit C. 2.3. If KIEWIT is to perform the Work, UTILITY shall furnish an inspector in a timely manner to observe the Work and verify that all standards, codes, and regulations are being met as described in Section 1.3. If UTILITY is to perform the Work, KIEWIT shall supply an inspector in a timely manner to observe the Work and verify that all improvements are compatible with the overall design, phasing, and construction of the Project. 2.4. The Party performing the construction agrees to promptly notify the other Party upon completion of the Work. 2.5. If KIEWIT is performing the Work, UTILITY shall, within five (5) working days of being notified that the Work is completed: (a) deliver a letter of acceptance to WSDOT, or (b) deliver to WSDOT written reasons why the Work does not comply with the previously approved Plans and Special Provisions. UTILITY agrees to work diligently and in good faith with KIEWIT to resolve any issues so as not to delay the Project. If all issues are resolved, UTILITY agrees to deliver to WSDOT a letter of acceptance as provided herein. 2.6. If UTILITY is performing the Work, KIEWIT shall, within five (5) working days of being notified that the Work is completed: (a) deliver a letter of acceptance to UTILITY, or (b) deliver to UTILITY written reasons why the Work does not comply with the previously approved Plans and Special Provisions. KIEWIT agrees to work diligently and in good faith with UTILITY to resolve any issues so as not to delay the Project. If all issues are resolved, KIEWIT agrees to deliver to UTILITY a letter of acceptance as provided herein. 2.7. If either Party does not respond within five (5) working days as provided in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, the Work and the administration thereof will be deemed accepted by the other Party, and the Party performing the Work shall be released from all future claims and demands except for latent defects to the extent allowed by Washington Law. 2.8. Upon completion and acceptance of the Work pursuant to Sections 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7, to the extent allowed by Washington law, UTILITY agrees that it shall be solely responsible for all future ownership, operation, and maintenance costs of its facilities, without KIEWIT or WSDOT liability or expense. 2.9. KIEWIT will prepare the final construction “as-built” survey and documentation in general conformance with WSDOT’s Construction Manual. KIEWIT will maintain one set of plans as the official “as-built” set, then make notations in red of all plan revisions typically recorded per standard WSDOT practice, as directed by WSDOT’s Construction Manual. Once the approving Party has accepted the Work per Section 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7, KIEWIT will provide one (1) reproducible set of “as-builts” to UTILITY. 3. Payment 3.1. The Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement agrees that it shall be responsible for the actual direct and related indirect costs of the efforts to perform the Work by the Party(ies) identified in the following Recitals: 3.2. The total cost to achieve completion of the Work is estimated to be: □ Unspecified □ $125,000 (Design) □ $______ (Construction) to be included in amended Utility Agreement An itemized estimate of costs for the Work is: □ Not included □ Included in Exhibit D □ To be included in the Final Utility Agreement 3.3. If monies are deemed to be due from one Party to the other as required by the terms of this Agreement, the Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement agrees to pay the other Party the actual cost for its participation in the completion of the Work for UTILITY. The Party identified in Recital 6 shall make any payments due to the other Party within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving request for payment. 3.4. Should the Party identified in Recital 6 of this Agreement fail to make payment to the other Party according to the terms of this Agreement, the Party owed unpaid monies shall have the right to terminate this Agreement after reasonable notice to the defaulting Party and an opportunity to cure. 4. Change in Work or Cost Increase 4.1. Increase in Cost: In the event unforeseen conditions, not caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of KIEWIT, WSDOT, its or their agents, or a third party, require an increase in the cost of the Work as specified in Section 3.2, a change in the agreed total cost will: □ Be paid One Hundred Percent (100%) by KIEWIT □ Be paid One Hundred Percent (100%) by UTILITY □ Be paid at a split cost as identified below: KIEWIT: _______________ Percent (____%) UTILITY: _______________ Percent (____%) A change to the total cost of the Work identified in Section 3.2 will only be considered if the actual cost to complete the Work is equal to or more than the following percentage over the value identified in Section 3.2 □ _______________ Percent (____%) □ Not Applicable □KIEWIT □UTILITYRecital 4 (KIEWIT) Recital 5 (UTILITY) x x x x x 4.2. If it is determined by the Party performing the Work that additional Work or a change in the Work is required, prior written approval must be secured from the Party identified in Recital 6. However, where the change is required to mitigate a Project emergency or safety threat to the traveling public, the Party performing the Work may direct the change without the approval of the Party identified in Recital 6. Proper notifications shall be made between both Parties of such changes as soon as possible thereafter. 4.3. Regardless of the Party performing the Work, UTILITY may request additions to the Work in writing. KIEWIT will review the request and accommodate the requested changes as elective changes, provided that a change does not negatively impact WSDOT’s transportation system and complies with the Standard Specifications, Project permits, state and/or federal law, applicable rules and/or regulations, and/or WSDOT design policies, and does not unreasonably delay critically scheduled Project contract activities. Costs to construct UTILITY facilities above and beyond the cost required for the scope of the Work will be paid for solely by UTILITY, regardless of the Party performing these additional activities. 5. Franchise of Permit 5.1. UTILITY shall apply for a new permit, franchise, or amendment to its current franchise for those new or modified UTILITY facilities that will be located within WSDOT’s right of way. After receiving the application, WSDOT will issue a new permit or a new or amended franchise, as applicable. 6. Right of Entry/Permits 6.1. KIEWIT agrees to provide copies of its Right of Entry Permits and Temporary Construction Easements with all privately owned lands, as requested by UTILITY. UTILITY may elect to perform its Work within the limits and restrictions of KIEWIT temporary construction easement. If UTILITY does not elect to perform its Work within the limits of KIEWIT temporary construction easements; UTILITY agrees to arrange for rights of entry upon all privately owned lands upon which UTILTY has a claimed property rights and which are necessary to perform the Work. UTILITY also agrees to obtain all necessary permissions for KIEWIT to perform the Work on such lands, which may include reasonable use restrictions on those lands. UTILITY agrees to provide the rights of entry and applicable permissions under this section to KIEWIT within ten (10) calendar days of entering into this Agreement. Upon completion of the Work on such lands, those rights of entry and permissions beyond the rights of entry and permissions granted by the WSDOT permit or franchise shall terminate. 6.2. KIEWIT agrees to provide copies of applicable permits that it has received to perform the work outside of this agreement, as requested. If applicable, UTILITY may elect to perform its Work under KIEWIT permits with the understanding all permit restrictions and conditions are met. It is the responsibility of the UTILITY to fully understand and comply with all KIEWIT permit conditions and requirements, including; but not limited to, performing the work within the identified boundaries and providing all necessary reports and documentation to support permit requirements and provide to KIEWIT in a timely manner after completion of Work. If UTILITY does not elect to perform its Work under KIEWIT permits; UTILITY agrees to obtain all necessary permits to perform the Work. If UTILITY elects for KIEWIT to perform any of the Work, UTILITY also agrees to obtain all necessary permit for KIEWIT to perform the Work. UTILITY agrees to provide the applicable permits under this section to KIEWIT within ten (10) calendar days of entering into this Agreement. Upon completion of the Work, those permits beyond the permissions granted by the issuing agencies shall terminate. 7. General Provisions 7.1. Indemnification: To the extent authorized by law, UTILITY and KIEWIT shall indemnify and hold harmless one another and their employees and/or officers from and shall process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, damages (both to persons and/or property), or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the one Party arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the other Party’s performance or failure to perform any aspect of this Agreement, provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) UTILITY and (b) KIEWIT, their respective employees and/or officers, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of UTILITY or KIEWIT, and provided further, that nothing herein shall require the UTILITY or KIEWIT to hold harmless or defend the other or its employees and/or officers from any claims arising from that Party’s sole negligence or that of its employees and/or officers. The terms of this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 7.2. Disputes: If a dispute occurs between the UTILITY and KIEWIT at any time during the prosecution of the Work, the Parties agree to negotiate at the management level to resolve any issues. Should such negotiations fail to produce a satisfactory resolution, the Parties agree to enter into arbitration and/or mediation before proceeding to any other legal remedy. Each Party shall be responsible for its own fees and costs. The Parties agree to equally share the cost of a mediator or arbiter. 7.3. Venue: In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties hereto agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in the State of Washington. Each Party shall be responsible for its own attorney’s fees and costs. 7.4. Termination: 7.4.1. Unless otherwise provided herein, KIEWIT my terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to UTILITY. 7.4.2. KIEWIT acknowledges and agrees that should it terminate this Agreement, such termination shall not relieve the Party identified in Recital 6 from its responsibility to ultimately pay for the design, removal, relocation and/or construction of UTILITY facilities so as not to delay or conflict with the Project. 7.5. Amendments: This Agreement may be amended by the mutual agreement of both Parties. Such amendments or modifications shall not be binding unless put in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties. 7.6. Independent Contractor: Both Parties shall be deemed independent contractors for all purposes, and the employees of each Party and any of its contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and the employees thereof, shall not in any manner be deemed to be the employees of the other Party. 7.7. Audit and Records: During the progress of the Work and for a period of not less than six (6) years from the date of final payment, both Parties shall maintain the records and accounts pertaining to the Work and shall make them available upon reasonable notice during normal business hours and as often as necessary, for inspection and audit by the other Party, Washington State, and/or Federal Government and copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to the Work will be furnished upon request. The requesting Party shall pay the cost of copies produced. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the record, accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained until any litigation, claim, or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit continues past the six-year retention period. 8. Waiver of Consequential Damages 8.1. Neither party will be liable to the other party for consequential damages of any nature or kind, including loss of profits/revenue and use. Damages based on actual costs incurred as a result of inexcusable delays on the reference Project are not consequential damages. 8.2. WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES. In no event shall either party hereto be liable to the other or obligated in any manner to pay to the other any special, incidental, consequential, punitive or similar losses or damages (including loss of profits, loss of production, loss of business opportunity or other consequential or indirect loss) based upon claims arising out of or in connection with the performance or non-performance of its obligations or otherwise under this Agreement, or the material inaccuracy of any representation made in this Agreement, whether such claims are based upon contract, tort, negligence, warranty or other legal theory; provided, however, that the waiver of this foregoing damages under this Section is intended to apply only to disputes and claims as between UTILITY and KIEWIT. Nothing in this Section shall limit the obligation of the UTILITY to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the KIEWIT Indemnitees, or the obligation of KIEWIT to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the UTILITY Indemnitees, for any consequential or punitive damages payable to third parties resulting from any act or circumstance for which the UTILITY or KIEWIT, as applicable, is obligated to indemnify hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DAY AND YEAR LAST WRITTEN BELOW. ATTACHMENTS: □ Exhibit A – Assignment/Delegation of Utility Permit/Franchise Rights & Obligations □ Exhibit B – Plans (as designed by KIEWIT) □ Exhibit C – Special Provisions □ Exhibit D – Cost Estimate - Design □ Exhibit D – Cost Estimate - Construction UTILITY __________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ By (Print Name) _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date KIEWIT __________________________________ Signature _____________________________________ By (Print Name) _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date x x 1 Assignment/Delegation of Utility Franchise/Permit Rights and Obligations This is a Limited Assignment of Rights and Delegation of Obligations (“Assignment”) by and between the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) and Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (“Design-Builder”). RECITALS 1. WSDOT entered into a design-build contract with Design-Builder, for a highway improvement project within the following locations in Kitsap County, Washington for the SR 3/SR 104/SR 303/SR 307/SR 308 Kitsap County – Remove Fish Barriers Project: a. State Route 3, Mile Post 41.52 to 59.55; b. State Route 104, Mile Post 16.55 to 22.95; c. State Route 303, Mile Post 6.63 to 6.90; d. State Route 307, Mile Post 1.34 to 1.45; e. State Route 308, Mile Post 0.94 to 2.16 2. The Project requires the relocation of utilities that are located on WSDOT right of way pursuant to certain Utility Permits or Franchises. 3. WSDOT determined that it is in the best interest of the State of Washington and the traveling public to temporarily assign certain rights and delegate certain obligations under the Utility Permits and Franchises to the Design-Builder for the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities for the Project. 4. Design-Builder agrees that WSDOT’s temporary assignment of rights and delegation of obligations under the Permits and Franchises will facilitate the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: In consideration of the orderly, efficient, and effective relocation of utility facilities located within state highway right of way in support of the Project, WSDOT does hereby assign, transfer, and delegate unto Design-Builder the Utility Permits and Franchises identified in Exhibit A, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. 1. This Assignment includes only those rights and obligations under the Permit or Franchise (and the General Provisions, Special Provisions, and Exhibits of the Permit or Franchise, if any) that are necessary or convenient for the Design-Builder to execute the Project. 2. This Assignment includes any amendment to, or replacement of, the Permit or Franchise (and the General Provisions, Special Provisions, and Exhibits thereto, if any) issued by WSDOT after the date of execution of this Assignment. 3. This Assignment does not include the right to amend, revoke, cancel, issue or otherwise modify the Permit or Franchise. 4. This Assignment is non-exclusive and WSDOT retains the right to exercise all rights and obligations under the Permit or Franchise. 5. This Assignment shall automatically terminate upon completion of the Project, unless terminated earlier by WSDOT in writing. EXHIBIT A 2 6. Design-Builder agrees that it shall be solely responsible for any causes of action or claims, if any, that arise between the Design-Builder and the Utility during the term of this Assignment; therefore, Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, will protect, save and hold harmless WSDOT, its authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages (both to persons and property), injuries or expenses of any nature whatsoever by reason of the acts or omissions of Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, arising out of or in connection with Design-Builder’s or its agents’, employees’, contractors’, successors’, or assigns’ acts or omissions related to this Assignment; provided, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent acts or omissions of (a) WSDOT’s authorized agents or employees and (b) Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts or omissions of Design-Builder, its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns. This provision shall survive the termination of this Assignment. 7. The Design-Builder shall not assign or transfer the rights or obligations granted in this Assignment in any manner whatsoever, unless WSDOT consents thereto in writing. 8. WSDOT shall provide a copy of this Assignment to the Utility after it is executed by WSDOT and Design-Builder. 9. The Design-Builder shall exercise its rights and obligations granted in this Assignment in a reasonable and prudent manner. Design-Builder hereby accepts the rights and assumes the obligations from WSDOT as set forth above. WSDOT hereby assigns the rights and delegates the obligations as set forth above to Design-Builder. Title: Title: Dated: Dated: Area Manager 2/20/2024 2/26/2024 Olympic Region Utility Manager Bremerton/Kiewit Utility Relocation Agreement February 2026 Exhibit D – Cost Estimate for Design (Site B) Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT D – COST ESTIMATE FOR DESIGN GORST VICINITY - REMOVE FISH BARRIERS (C9920) UTILITY RELOCATION DESIGN WATER AND SEWER SITE C Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (KIWC) provides total cost proposal of $125,000 to complete the scope outlined in this proposal. Breakdown of cost includes: - $105,000 – Base Design (Lumpsum) - $20,000 – maintenance reserve for undefined scope that requires authorization by the City Site C Two Water mains running parallel to roadway alignment on either side of SR 16 (8” and 16”). Water main service crosses perpendicular to SR 16 to east of culvert crossing. Two Sanitary Sewer running parallel to roadway force mains on either side of SR 16 (2” and 10”). Services shall include: • Brainstorm Concepts – KPFF to work with Kiewit to develop options for the relocations and identify preferred approaches prior to meeting with the utility owner. • Meetings – as identified in the attached fee worksheet, shall include: o Bi-weekly meetings with WSDOT, akin to Task Force meetings to keep them informed on design development. o Owner Meetings – City of Bremerton to work through technical issues. o Kiewit and Team Meetings • Preparation of utility plans, profiles, details and specifications. Refer to fee spreadsheet for assumed number of plans. • KPFF will support the utility owner with the preparation of utility variances. Owner is responsible for submission to WSDOT. • Plan reviews will be limited to a constructability review performed by Kiewit prior, an over-the- shoulder review with WSDOT at the 60% design level. KPFF to resolve all comments from WSDOT and the utility owners and provide a formal submittal to WSDOT at 100%. Comments from the 100% review will be resolved prior to RFC. Assumptions • KPFF will evaluate with Kiewit options for relocation of the facilities at Site C including below- grade and above grade solutions prior to outreach to the owners. Exclusions • Updates to plans beyond what is scoped herein to be addressed by others. This scope does not include any revisions to the current plans such as Site Preparation, TESC, or to address conflicts with drainage, for example. The RFC plans for other disciplines are already completed and work doesn’t cover updates to other RFC sheets. • This scope of services does not include calculations or modeling of the water distribution system. It is assumed that the main will be replaced in kind and any modifications will not have an appreciable impact on the performance of the system. Necessary modeling or calculations will be performed by the utility owner. • This scope of services does not include calculations for the sewer force mains or evaluation of lift stations. It is assumed that the force main will be replaced in kind and any modifications will Bremerton/Kiewit Utility Relocation Agreement February 2026 Exhibit D – Cost Estimate for Design (Site B) Page 2 of 2 not have an appreciable impact on the performance of the system. Any such evaluation will be performed by the utility owner. • Additional traffic control plans to that already developed for Site C are excluded from the scope estimate. • Excludes any work associated with obtaining permits or environmental documentation Public Comment January 14, 2025 Public Comment 01. WA State Law Governing Public Comment 02. Options for Restructuring WA State Law governing Public Comment Public Comment: Legal Authority and Restructuring •RCW 35A.12.120: "The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order." WA State Law governing Public Comment Public Comment: Legal Authority and Restructuring •The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA RCW 42.30) requires that all meetings of governing bodies of public agencies be open to the public. •It also specifies specific provisions regarding the notice that must be given for meetings and the conduct of meetings. RCW 42.30.240(2) Upon the request of any individual who will have difficulty attending a meeting of the governing body of a public agency by reason of disability, limited mobility, or for any other reason that makes physical attendance at a meeting difficult,the governing body shall, when feasible, provide an opportunity for that individual to provide oral comment at the meeting remotely if oral comment from other members of the public will be accepted at the meeting. Public Comment: Legal Authority and Restructuring OPMA: Remote Public Comment Takeaway: If Council allows in-person public comment, then it must also allow remote public comment. RCW 42.30.250(1)Notices soliciting public comment A public agency that is required by state law to solicit public comment for a statutorily specified period of time, and is required by state law to provide notice that it is soliciting public comment, must specify the first and last date and time by which written public comment may be submitted. Public Comment: Legal Authority and Restructuring OPMA: Notice of Public Comment Takeaway: Council must give adequate notice that it will be accepting comment and specify specific dates/times when it will be accepted. Public Comment 01. WA State Law Governing Public Comment 02. Options for Restructuring Public Comment Option 1: Accept Written Comment Only. Accept written or recorded comments and set a start and end date/time for submittal. Benefits Allows staff to prepare responses and incorporate public feedback into presentations. Allows Council time to thoughtfully review public input. Increases accessibility for those uncomfortable with public speaking, shift workers, and individuals unable to attend evening meetings No Legal Requirement Public Recognition and verbal comments on Consent Agenda and General Business items are not required by law. Option 2: Remove Public Recognition, Keep Comment on Items. Keep verbal public comment on Consent Agenda, General Business items, and Public Hearings. Offer alternatives to Public Recognition. Alternatives to Public Recognition Office Hours Listening Sessions Small-group Meetings Providing opportunities to engage with the community on non-agenda matters in these formats can alleviate concerns about the lack of back-and-forth dialogue at General Business Meetings. Option 3: Hold Public Recognition After General Business Maintain former process to allow comment on ANY item but move Public Recognition to the end of General Business Meetings. Benefits Reduces agenda disruption. Reduces emotional fatigue on officials and staff during presentations and voting. Published for February 11 Study Session Item B2 Public Comments From:kim siebens To:City Council; Legal; Greg Wheeler; City Clerk; Jeneise Briggs Subject:Urgent—OPMA Noncompliance, Viewpoint Discrimination, and Request for Corrective Action Date:Monday, February 9, 2026 11:14:32 PM Attachments:OPMA EXHIBITS A - D.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the Bremerton City Council, Mayor, Legal Representatives, City Clerk, et al. Thank you for scheduling discussion of public-comment rules at the February 11th Study Session. I write as a community member and longstanding local advocate to raise serious, documented concerns that the City’s current public-comment practices and public materials conflict with RCW 42.30.240 and which have created an unlawful viewpoint discrimination policy violating the First Amendment and Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution. Summary of facts and timeline: - September 2025: The City eliminated “public recognition” after the September 17th, 2025 city council meeting, removing a longstanding avenue for public criticism, announcements, and accountability. - Afterward the City allowed in-person comment on agenda items, then later ended all verbal public comment and then shifted to email-only comments. Except on February 4th 2026 when public comment was only allowed on the fire department rescue boat item. (See exhibit A) - Historically the public could submit comments through noon the Tuesday prior to meetings. For the January 28th, 2026 Study Session the agenda packet included a small-print notice (page 242) stating comments had to be submitted by January 23rd, 2026 to be read/considered — an abrupt departure from usual practice. (See exhibit B) - February 2026: The City published a PowerPoint and other materials that omit RCW 42.30.240(1)’s requirement that members of the public be afforded an opportunity to provide oral or written comment at or before regular meetings at which final action is taken. (See exhibit C) -After a blatantly failed smear campaign targeting constituents, public recognition was eliminated, a public-records request was submitted, asking for any records documenting threats or harm that would justify the change. The City responded that no responsive records exist. This undermines the stated safety justification for eliminating verbal comment opportunities. (See exhibit D) Legal framework (key points): - RCW 42.30.240(1) requires that members of the public be afforded an opportunity to provide oral or written comment at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken. This is mandatory statutory language, not discretionary guidance. (See RCW 42.30.240: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30.240) - The First Amendment, federal precedent, and Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution prohibit governmental viewpoint discrimination. - Washington State Attorney General guidance emphasizes the duty of local agencies to follow statutory text and accurately inform the public of participation rights. (Washington AGO Open Government resources.) Why current practice raises legal and policy concerns: 1. Omission of RCW 42.30.240(1) from public materials is material and misleading. Subsection (1) creates the affirmative right to be heard at or before meetings where final action is taken. Omitting (1) while emphasizing subsection (2) materially misstates the law and misleads the public about their rights. Focusing only on (2) without quoting (1) effectively presents a narrowed rule that is not the full statutory mandate. That omission raises the appearance of intentional manipulation and increases legal risk (OPMA violation; First Amendment/viewpoint-discrimination, and Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution claims). 2. Abrupt deadline changes and selective permission to comment on some items but not others create an appearance of inconsistent application and viewpoint discrimination. 3. Eliminating longstanding oral-comment opportunities without documented, narrowly tailored factual justification is inconsistent with the OPMA and First Amendment principles. 4. The City’s inability to produce records of threats or harm (per the public-records response) contradicts stated safety-based justifications for eliminating verbal comment. Requested corrective actions: Please provide written confirmation and take the following steps by February 18, 2026 (one week after the Study Session): 1. Acknowledge in writing that RCW 42.30.240(1) requires an opportunity for oral or written comment at or before regular meetings where final action is taken, and confirm the City will comply. 2. Correct public materials (agenda packets, PowerPoint slides, web pages) that omit or misstate the City’s obligations under RCW 42.30.240 and republish accurate guidance. 3. Publish a clear public-comment policy that: - Quotes RCW 42.30.240 verbatim and explains how it will be implemented; - Identifies any narrowly tailored, content-neutral time/manner limits and shows how they will be applied uniformly; - Describes the process for reasonable accommodations for disabilities; - Affirms that comments will not be barred based on viewpoint. 4. Reinstate, at minimum, a meaningful oral-comment opportunity consistent with RCW 42.30.240(1), unless the City provides a documented, narrowly tailored factual basis for a temporary alternative procedure. 5. Retrain council members and staff on OPMA compliance, focusing on RCW 42.30.240 and the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. 6. Provide a written explanation for: (a) the removal of public recognition after 9/17/2025, (b) the January 28th, 2026 public comment deadline change, (c) the legal basis for current limitations on verbal comment, and (d) the public-records response that no records exist documenting threats or harm. If the City asserts extraordinary circumstances justify restrictions, please include factual evidence supporting that claim. Attachments and evidence I am attaching: -exhibit A: February 4th, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda showing public-comment availability for the rescue-boat item; -exhibit B: Jan. 28th, 2026 Study Session agenda packet page 242 (small-print deadline notice); -exhibit C: Power Point Presentation in the February 11, 2026 study session agenda packet titled, “Public Comments”; -exhibit D: Copy of the City’s public-records response stating no records of threats/harm exist. Closing: Transparent, lawful public process is essential to public trust. Selectively omitting statutory requirements or imposing inconsistent barriers to participation undermines that trust and risks legal challenge. I request the City correct the record, adopt and publish a compliant public-comment policy, and confirm the steps above in writing by February 18, 2026. I want to leave you with a key passage from a United States Supreme Court ruling (Rosenblatt v. Baer): "Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. It is clear, therefore, that the 'public official' designation applies, at the very least, to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs." I encourage you to look this up and reflect on its insights, especially as someone who has taken on such significant responsibilities in government affairs. As a trauma nurse and community advocate, I face similar challenges every day, working to ensure accountability and support for those I serve. I'm not asking you to do anything I’m not already striving to achieve in my own role. Thank you for being open enough to read and hear this message. Regardless of differing opinions, your position is crucial and affects the lives of many. We must always hold ourselves accountable if we wish to serve the public to the best of our abilities. Sincerely, Kimmy Siebens RN P.S. It's essential to always keep the people we serve at the forefront of our decisions. Their voices matter in every equation. Economic Inequity and Health Task Force Member, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility http://www.wpsr.org President, Their Voice http://www.their-voice.org Founder, Bremerton Homeless Community Coalition https://www.facebook.com/groups/bremertonhomeless Founding Member, Rock the Block http://www.facebook.com/groups/rocktheblockkitsap/ 2018 Kitsap County Housing and Homelessness Coalition Volunteer of the Year https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BDbAVzCNx/?mibextid=wwXIfr 2022 Citizen of The Year - Kitsap County Association of Realtors https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=914581119903692&set=pcb. 2023 USA TODAY Woman of the Year Honoree https://www.kitsapsun.com/in-depth/news/2023/03/19/kimmy-siebens-washington- usa-today-women-year/69925589007/ 2026 University of Washington Harborview Medical Center Martin Luther King Jr. Tribute Awardee https://equity.uwmedicine.org/martin-luther-king-jr-tribute/ EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK From:Friendsof Smith Cove To:City Council; Friendsof Smith Cove; Robin Weldin; kimmysiebens@yahoo.com; joslynjune@gmail.com; paralegal312@gmail.com Subject:FoSC Comment re Public Recognition / OPMA Discussion In Upcoming Study Session Date:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:57:11 AM Attachments:2-10-26 FoSC Comment - OPMA Is Being Misrepresented By City Gov.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This is our comment for the upcoming study session discussion. Please include this email as part of our comment. One thing I omitted is that the city government's present course of bad faith conduct, including in its presentations of misleading the public in its presentations including as to free speech and OPMA is open doors to federal liability under a Section 1983 Civil Rights action for deprivation of constitutional right, as well as Federal Fair Housing violation - each of which allow the imposition of punitive damages. -- Friends of Smith Cove in Evergreen Park https://www.youtube.com/@FriendsofSmithCove Virus-free.www.avast.com OPMA Is Being Misrepresented - City Government Shills & Cartel Partners Lie About OPMA To Continue To Amplify The Voice Of Multimillionaire Developers & Smother Our Voice After five months of fake study during its “pause” this “No Legal Requirement” excerpt from the presentation in the study session agenda packet (2-11-26) as to the city’s “pause” on unrestricted public comment demonstrates the evisceration of ethics from Bremerton’s city government. This “No Legal Requirement” statement is gas-lighting. It has been continuously repeated to the public by Bremerton’s government as it silences critics of its contempt for the public, and its servility to a realty / developer cartel. Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act has a 4-section provision literally titled “Public Comment” at RCW 42.30.240 which plainly mandates in its subsection 1 a right to speak at city council with the content of that speech unrestricted and determined entirely by the speaker. We are being deceived about OPMA. One of FoSC’s public comment criticisms of council is its routine resort to deceit. For example, we exposed council’s dishonesty when it adhered to misleading talking points solely blaming the mayor for the public bathroom failure but omitting its legislative power to override the mayor - the most calculated yet condescending liar being hose-the-homeless Mockler: Cameron: “... how should we shift our thinking and advocation to find a way to get those folks what we believe they need.” Mockler: “Well, I'm thinking about your question. The first is you know that 10 grand that we alloted - less a chunk a money that we paid um to - well to you, actually. Uh, it's still sitting in our budget. The mayor refuses to pay it. If you look in the - well, any government document, the legislative body makes policy decisions and then the executive body carries them out. So if that doesn’t happen, ah, we haven’t been able to figure out how to go around that.” Cameron: ...Uh, and so there's chunk of money that is still sitting there, but that is tied up with the mayor, and not with Council.” Mockler: “Oh no, it's sitting in our budget and from time to time we like we go is there any way to do that. The mayor feels there would be too great a risk.” See 9-16-25 FoSC Written Comment: Deceit-As-Policy Deployed To Harm Our Unhoused . FoSC 1 of 13. With council’s institutional lack of character, it had no ability to withstand pressure from Sound West Group’s whiny Karen letter of 9-9-25 . Representative of the mendacious mercantile takeover of city government, signatories Wesley Larson, Steve Sego, and Jack Paauw demanded we be made “respectful” and cowed by “security escorts.” Our obsequious and complicit municipal “public servants” at Norm Dicks have obeyed via the ‘pause.’ As commissioner Chris Browning learned, the cartel’s silencing is the new fascistic orthodoxy. https://youtu.be/5LKbc5u2Kds My defiance, mockery and contempt is intentional expressive conduct. I am Puerto Rican. I do not respect corruption, including the supplanting of civics by chamber of commerce cronyism, deceit, and propaganda. I’ve experienced homelessness, and as a paralegal researcher have used law to advocate for the pariahs and powerless. We count too. However cynical I was about the U.S., I grew to love American law not out of jingoistic ‘patriotism’ but because it upholds reason, discussion and problem-solving for the common good; it is imbued with the idea of fairness. Puerto Ricans have tried to endure or escape the kind of displacing Yte wealth hoarders’ greed which preyed upon Puerto Ricans for centuries, and continues to commit ethnocide by gentrification, and this oligarchic cancer metastasizes across not just Puerto Rico or its diaspora, but the U.S., including by destroying the very idea of ethical open government. Council pretends good faith but its sycophancy to dominant developers is the problem. 10-1-25 “Tift Gaslights Robin @ Planning Comm.; We Expose DCD's Rigging For Wesley Larson & Jack Paauw Anyway” FoSC 2 of 13. If you want an insight into the character of this “high net worth” cartel, please read SWG’s Karen letter and Gregory Genovese v. Larson / Sound West Group Fraud Litigation pleadings : The Multi-Millionaires’ Club - “4 th Street Action Group ” - Actually Invoked “Lift Us Out Of Poverty” To Heist HUD CDBG Public Monies Intended For The Low-Income, Including The Homeless City government coddling of or merger with self-appointed private interest elites who care most for their own profit and investments is legally morally repugnant. A major premise of American law and FoSC’s public comment criticism of this council is that: “Government is instituted for the common good … and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” – John Adams This premise is not radical or arcane. Public officials cannot be sycophants or give special treatment to their favorites. An Atlantic article a century and a half old - "Log-Rolling at Washington ," The Atlantic, September 1869 Issue - tells us what is going on in Bremerton: FoSC 3 of 13. "... lobbying is as ancient as governing. It is also as legitimate and necessary, since the governing power is in need of the special knowledge which it is the proper office of a lobby to supply. It is only when the governing power is weak or corrupt or too transient, that there is danger of the lobby laying aside its modest office of supplying information, and assuming the mastery . As weak kings are governed by favorites and mistresses, so ill-constituted parliaments are governed by lobbies. … A recent writer gives a short description of the rapacious lobby that surrounded the Scotchman called James I, King of England, every word of which applies with exactness to the state of things in Washington during the two years ending March 4, 1869: ' In addition to the officials whose pay was nearly nominal, the king was surrounded by a crowd of hungry courtiers whose pay was nothing at all. To them flocked day by day all who had any favor to beg, and who hoped that a little money judiciously expended would smooth the way before them. Some of the applicants, no doubt, were honest men, who merely wanted to get a chance of doing honest work. But there were not a few whose only object was to enrich themselves in some discreditable way, and who were ready to share the booty with those who would lend them a helping hand in their roguery.' Every well-informed resident of Washington will recognize the literal truth of the description. Like king, like lobby. Johnson was probably not a corrupt man, in the lowest sense of the word. His refusal of the carriage and horses offered to him by his admirers may not have been the mere buncombe it was supposed to be; and he probably went home to Tennessee carrying with him only the savings of his salary, and the contempt of the universe. And yet he could hardly have been ignorant that prostitutes of one sex sold his pardons, and prostitutes of another sex sold his offices. James I of England, who also had his pardon lobby and his 'appointment lobby,' was aware, probably, that his favorites sold him every day, and was perhaps not unwilling to enrich them in so economical a manner. There are people whose self-love is such that they can associate happily only with their worshipers, having always to be on their good behavior with equals, which is irksome . …" Our Public Comment Viewpoint Proves & Condemns City Government Corruption, Violations, Deceit, And Cruelty Towards Your Marginalized Victims – Which Is Why You Gagged Us As a Puerto Rican who lives in precarity, integrity in government as the vehicle for equal protection is a matter of personal survival. Epistemological, political and cultural erasure, as FoSC 4 of 13. well as the subversion of legal process by the wealthy to gain political and economic advantage, is something Puerto Ricans and other marginalized people have experienced for generations. As a paralegal advocate who has experienced homelessness, we pitched in when it appeared one group of neighbors was being gas-lighted as to the Evergreen Pointe project rigged by Andrea Spencer and another group was being crushed by the city’s cruel “sweeps” of the tent communities of our poor friends and neighbors. https://youtu.be/nBcGh-2fQ1E https://youtu.be/wNikAta-FCg https://youtu.be/ERhvvEZn2gk As I was trying to come to terms with Spencer’s lawless gas-lighting approach to permitting the Evergreen Pointe, my partner Robin was traumatized by witnessing the MLK “sweep.” We knew this disgrace was unconstitutional, and saw these two prongs were connected by lawlessness and unequal protection. In late 2024, we gave our first in-person public comments against corruption and the infiltration of government by SWG via a conflicted Jack Paauw: 11-18-24 “Map E Special Favor / Conflict: We Object To Sound West Group In Planning Commission via Jack Paauw.” https://youtu.be/KiX2KlZwkIU and, “12-18-24_DCDs Evergreen Pointe Rig Taints Comp Plan; Nixing Hearing/Appeal Rights Enables Corruption“ https://youtu.be/6V9MqEtOtVE 11-4-23 Robin Records MLK "Sweep" - Illegal Destruction Of Survival Gear & Personal Property. FoSC 5 of 13. "I'm Jose Camacho. I'm a member of Friends of Smith Cove and Rock The Block. I'm kind of here in those two capacities. I'm a Puerto Rican. My parents are economic refugees from Puerto Rico. It's xxx that has been colonized and gas-lighted by my fellow Americans uh and I don't appreciate when the legal process is tampered with by corrupt official because that means I'm not safe. I've given the mayor and DCD and the city copious notice that this town bent so far over backward for sound West group that it broke the law, vitiated the Shoreline Management Act and it intends to carry that forward into the comprehensive plan in response to a year of my complaints the mayor has installed Wesley Arthur Larson's partner into the Planning Commission Jack paw doesn't belong there. This is my assertion that that whole scenario that fiasco making the Planning Commission into a kangaroo court is a violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine now there are specific SMP provisions that make the shoreline a cash cow for Sound West Group and other members of the realtor developer cartel in this town so the rigging of the Evergreen Pointe is a road map for it you want to know what happened there are public record act requests I made which are now open for anyone to grab on to public the rigging is both Map E and it's day-to-day permitting decisions which DCD made in which they just they just flouted Merkel vs. Port of Brownsville, the exemption statute they just ran roughshod over that to make sure that they delivered a special favor to Sound West Group. The other thing, I've been homeless. I understand that. I've slept on the ground. I've used the bathroom outside. For years, Rock The Block - I'm thinking of Joslyn right now have begged for a portapotty - still hasn't happened - money has been preened about, applauded, kudos, and never nothing becomes of it. $100,000 was given to the mayor by Chris Tibbs. I did a Public Record Act request. Nothing - there's no record of it." After a year of detailed written communication documenting the irremediably partisan special favor rigging of the Evergreen Pointe project, we were compelled to come to city hall (Norm Dicks) to give public comment at the seat of government because the corruption was there - obvious and supported by the evidence under law – most immediately and obviously via the amended Shoreline Master Program, Map E of Ordinance 5417, via Garrett Jackson’s deceitful misrepresentation of fact and law to public officials and the general public to get Ordinance 5417 passed. After I gave this “Public Recognition” comment at council, I sat down and it slowly dawned on me the insane import of Garrett Jackson’s presentation (@____) in which the city attorney concocted the scheme to deceive the public that “SB5290” authorized or justified the codification of the elimination of residents' due process right to object to, appeal, and petition their government over defective projects like the rigged Evergreen Pointe project. This rank misrepresentation of law, and omission of Constitutional law, by Kylie Finnell, DCD, and the council presaged the current flouting of “the freedom amendment” to silence us. FoSC 6 of 13. Until Denise Frey’s inadvertent confession, the only response to our detailed communications exposing the Evergreen Pointe rigging was Wesley Larson’s partner and director being installed into the planning commission – to create a stone wall around the rigging of the Evergreen Pointe rather than hold anyone accountable for the malfeasance. Jack Paauw’s installation into the planning commission, and the study session discussing this is a gob- smacking display of ethical, governmental and psychological dysfunction: “10-9-24 City Bends The Knee: Sound West Group Installed In Planning Commission Via SWG's Jack Paauw” https://youtu.be/ABerCusd3_c This installation happened while everyone at council knew because of our year-long communications that Paauw was (and still is) conflicted as to the $57 million dollar Evergreen Pointe. He is literally the “project representative” for the Evergreen Pointe – rigged every which way including Sunday. There is no separation between city government and SWG, share joint liability ,and are now engaged in joint evasion – including by the current ‘pause.’ Paauw Is The “Project Representative“ Of Andrea Spencer’s Rig As FoSC experienced first-hand the dishonorable Evergreen Pointe deception of the public by Andrea Spencer’s DCD, we also witnessed a perverse cruelty towards the homeless in which a council which voted for an inhumane unconstitutional “anti-camping” ordinance feigned sympathy towards the homeless as to the extremely modest request over the years for an accessible 24/7 public bathroom for the homeless. Council feigned powerlessness to attain basic sanitation for the victims of its persecution. The depravity of this culture is pervasive. FoSC 7 of 13. We have criticized the morally reprehensible CDBG Heist in which Sound West Group - worth 100s of millions of dollars - was aided by the city in pocketing CDBG monies intended for the needy - premised on promised affordable housing which never happened: “2016: Wesley Larson Mouthed 'Affordable Housing' To Pocket CDBG $$ For His Unaffordable B-Flats & Q2” https://youtu.be/OS5wS8v9U4I 5-19-25 “Quincy Square's '4th Street Action Group' Hijacked CDBG Funds Intended For Needy & Is Now A Cartel” https://youtu.be/0TH3vuW_GOs 6-4-25 “Only Realty / Developer Cartel Matters To City Hall, So It Helped It Snatch CDBG Funds From Needy” https://youtu.be/es4-M8IcJMA 6-4-25 “City Helped Sound West Group Snatch $300K HUD CDBG $ Which Could Have Been Used To Help The Homeless” https://youtu.be/h7FUvdkqOuM 7-16-25 “City Gave Larson's Quincy Square Properties $240K In CDBG Funds; Developer Cartel Should Be Barred.” https://youtu.be/KhLHUzZBLUo We gave public comment, along with many other members of the public, outraged over council’s MFTE capitulation in which it voted to continue this tax break gravy train for developers, including top dog developer Sound West Group, which will never build any low- income or affordable housing. See public’s MFTE testimony here. This overwhelmingly anti- MFTE testimony, including my disgusted condemnation, was followed by Sound West Group’s Karen letter of 9-9-25 demanding respect and security escorts for its hurt egos. Our public comments also cited the duty of candor False Report statute RCW 42.20.040 which bars public officers from misleading the public, and showed council members did violate it by feigning concern over the bathroom for the homeless issue, then blaming only the mayor while omitting the City Charter reality that council always has the power to override the mayor: 9-1-25 FoSC Request For Anna Mockler’s Resignation / Censure https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdsi5SYus7yHjFYxzbIti8AMd85pODFl/view 9-17-25 "City Charter Shows Councilmembers Lied For 2 Years About Being Powerless Re 24/7 Public Bathrooms" https://youtu.be/UIVwhvAgc_Q 9-17-25 "Kimmy: RCW 42.20.040 Prohibits Jeff Coughlin & Others From Lying They're Impotent Re Public Bathrooms" https://youtu.be/UFs5d3kanyM FoSC 8 of 13. Our first criticisms were that city government was dominated by a realty / developer cartel, and thus perversely servile to private interests, and this municipal government proved that thesis by gagging us to protect Andrea Spencer’s DCD / Sound West Group, but also covering up for it’s now plainly seen liability in its own right. This has resulted in a steady accumulation of deceit and misrepresentation out in the open during public processes since the October 1 st “pause” gagging of the public: 12-17-25 Ordinance 5532 Hearing Demonstrating City Attorney Lies & Omission https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KB3HXPVyAOgJecamYrB6BGrzsdLrzVeF/view 1-21-26 Bremerton City Government Continues To Deceive The Public On Matters Of Law & Fact – Misrepresenting My PROS Plan Argument, Free Speech & OPMA Law https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cgaWdCT0mPlmUMX6hT3jm9p6W8wdGYhh/view 1-27-26 City Gov Omits Mandatory Treasury Regulation In Hybrid Shelter Discussion Risking Loss Of ARPA Funding To Sabotage Shelter - Collusion Between City Gov & Private Interest https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hPkKUYYRg4S9BHzrNcy0vtS8NkmvkrGs/view 2-3-26 City Gov Omits Statutes (RCW 35.21.683, RCW 35.21.689, and RCW 35A.21.430) REQUIRING Zoning For Shelters / Transitional Housing So It Can Sabotage BHA Shelter https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJtlfvKoC1NwShaDnPGP7TibvM_wVSx6/view These show quite a track record of rank calculated misrepresentation and omission from council since city government’s “pause” and demonstrates that without this kind of classic criticism of government, FoSC and allies provided this municipal government of off the rails. Such criticism is necessary for democracy and well-known to be protected speech under the First Amendment and Article 1, Section 5 of Washington’s Constitution. The U.S. has a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); “There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion . Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. It is clear, therefore, that the "public official" designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs .“ Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966). Criticizing a crooked city government coddling a greedy self-interested cartel is well within protected free speech. FoSC 9 of 13. Council Mendacity And Deception Has Deepened And Now It Includes An Attempted Cover Up Of Effort To Sabotage BHA Hybrid Shelter & Misrepresentation Of OPMA Law In Order To Conceal The Bad Faith Malice Underlying The ‘Pause.” Council’s recent capricious behavior appears to be emboldened by the silencing of the public in its off the rails attempted sabotage of the BHA Hybrid Shelter. Here, and here. City government is light years from the spirit and letter of the Open Public Meetings Act: “… The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control ...” Open Public Meetings Act , RCW 42.30.010. As demonstrated, city government continues to mislead the public on matters of law by omitting actual law from public discussion. Public’s Right To Receive Information Our Courts have consistently maintained that the Federal and Washington Constitutions enshrine a right to receive information from government. "[T]he State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 482 (1965); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Fritz v. Gorton , 83 Wash. 2d 275 (1974); Stockton v. Brown, 152 F. 4th 1124 (9th Circuit, 2025); Voters Educ. Comm v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, 161 Wash.2d 470, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007); Bradburn v. North Cent. Regional Library Dist., 231 P.3d 166, 168 Wash. 2d 789 (2010). Even before the “pause,” Bremerton city administration and council chronically violated the First Amendment by preventing and obstructing the public’s right to receive information as part of formal meetings, hearings, public processes and presentations. Washington has a strong policy of transparency. e.g., 2019-2021 Shoreline Master Program “periodic review” process. This violates the premise underlying both the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act: “… The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know . The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. ...” When public officers and public servants mislead or misrepresent during formal hearings and presentations, we cannot intelligently meaningfully participate in fair self-governance. FoSC 10 of 13. Dishonesty is not an option. Washington bars pubic officers and public servants from misleading the public by criminalizing this kind of deception and First Amendment violation. RCW 42.20.040 False report: “Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor." WA’s Constitution & Open Public Meetings Act Must Be Read Together It is well-known settled law that in many areas of civil rights, Washington’s Constitution has a broader liberal protective reach than the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of speech under Article 1, Section 5, is one of those areas. O'Day v. King County , 109 Wn.2d 796, 749 P.2d 142 (1988). "Unlike the First Amendment, [Washington's Constitution,] article 1, section 5 categorically rules out prior restraints on constitutionally protected speech under any circumstances." O'Day v. King County; Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue , 937 P.2d 154, 163, 132 Wash. 2d 103 (1997). Washington's Constitution, Article I, Section 5, states: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects , being responsible for the abuse of that right." The literal and categorical Constitutional language here is mandatory. This is a premise of OPMA; OPMA cannot be read to violate this Constitutional mandate. It is conveniently ignored by the city attorney and council thus misleading the public. Bremerton cannot restrict free speech on any subject, let alone on the subject of city corruption for the purpose of criticism. OPMA’s “Public Comment” provision in subsection 1 of RCW 42.30.240 is being erased by bad faith council ‘study’ sessions. It exists. And yet, all these months the city attorney and council has tip-toed around it. There are four sections to the Public Comment provision in OPMA. The first subsection is plain, and contains zero restrictions on the speech this protects during the public comment this section commands cities “shall provide an opportunity” for. "(1) … the governing body of a public agency shall provide an opportunity at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken for public comment. The public comment required under this section may be taken orally at a public meeting, or by providing an opportunity for written testimony to be submitted before or at the meeting. ...” Hence, the “no legal requirement” claim by the city is frivolous and misleading. It’s right there before your eyes. FoSC 11 of 13. OPMA Is Not Forcing Of Either Verbal Public Comment Or Written Comments - The Word “ Or ” In OPMA’s RCW 42.30.240(1) Must Be Construed As An ‘Inclusive Or’ To Give Full Effect To The Unrestricted Scope Of WA’s Constitution, Article 1, Section 5 Free Speech Mandate RCW 42.30.240(1) states “The public comment required under this section may be taken orally at a public meeting, or by providing an opportunity for written testimony to be submitted .” In its contempt for the public, and to flee accountability, the city government is expediently fooling the public by forcing a disjunctive interpretation for the word or between oral comments and written comments in subsection 1 of RCW 42.30.240. Such disjunctive distinction does not does not exist given the context and the Constitutional mandate for the fullest expression of free speech for the greatest amount of speakers in all their numbers, abilities, and variety. In context of all free speech law, the word “or” must be deemed the “inclusive or.” “[T]he English word "or" has two counterparts in Latin: (1) "vel" (often referred to as the "inclusive `or'"), meaning A or B, or both; and (2) "aut" (often referred to as the "exclusive `or'"), meaning A or B, but not both. R. Dickerson, The Fundamentals of Legal Drafting 76 (1965).” Matter of Estate of Dodge, 685 P.2d 260(2nd Div., 1984). “The word "or" has an inclusive sense (A or B, or both) as well as an exclusive one (A or B, not both). See GARNER DICTIONARY OF LEGAL USAGE, 3d ed. at 639(citing Scott J. Burnham, THE CONTRACT DRAFTING GUIDEBOOK 163 (1992)) (noting that "or" is generally used in the inclusive sense ).” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (2015). "The use of ‘or’ to mean either one or both of two options is routine. "The word `or' has an inclusive sense (A or B, or both) as well as an exclusive one (A or B, not both)." Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 815 (7th Cir. 2015). "`The meaning of or is usually inclusive.'" ... For example, if a server comes to a table and asks whether anyone would like "dessert or coffee," no one would interpret that to preclude ordering both." Allison v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21CV890. (Dist. Court, MD North Carolina 2023). “Although "or" is used in both senses in common usage, "[t]he meaning of or is usually inclusive." Id. "[C]ourts recognize that `or' can be either exclusive or inclusive; and courts typically consider `or' exclusive only when combined with `either.'" Orthopediatrics Corp. v. Wishbone Medical , Case No. 3:20-CV-929 JD (Dist.Court, ND Indiana 2022). FoSC 12 of 13. In the city government’s determination to limit and neuter “emotionally draining” public criticism of its dysfunction, mendacity, and corruption, it is attempting to corral such free speech, thought, and discussion into balkanized information silos – instead of being shared and received by all of the public in the public forum for “reasoned discussion.” Using the tactic of deceptive cherry-picking and omission against the overarching mission of our more protective liberal state Constitution, the city attorney has encouraged the position that written-only comments are acceptable. It is not. This ploy disregards our right as the public to receive comments from our neighbors in the public forum, excludes those without internet access, excludes the illiterate or semi-literate, some disabled, the non-Engish speaker, those with only three minutes worth of endurance in their focus. An affinity or aptitude for writing is not universal. Oral comments however awkward gives the full use of one’s expression in the public forum. This jibes with the liberal breath of Article 1, Section 5. In addition, in the real world, it does happen that something comes up or is notice within the span of time between submitting a written comment and walking to the Norm Dicks in the council or commission chambers. In fact, on 12-18-24, I was sitting unawares when I finally understood what Garrett Jackson was presenting was in fact the elimination of due process for projects like and/or including the rigged Evergreen Pointe project – and realizing what he was proposing, I was able to get and object to this, however awkwardly. A written-only comment rule would have prevented the enshrined right to give that objection. I was the only one to so object to this city’s “SB5290” Constitutional violation. Because of the broad sweep of Washington’s Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, and principles of Constitutional supremacy, OPMA and local policy must give effect to that broad sweep. Speaking, writing, and publishing cannot be restricted or filtered through agenda items used to restrict and obstruct free speech, including particular viewpoints, or written-only commenting. The local whims and resentments of petulant city officers and their favorite private interests should not touch this fundamental democratic freedom. Jose Camacho / Robin Weldin Friends of Smith Cove In Evergreen Park https://www.youtube.com/@FriendsofSmithCove FriendsofSmithCove@gmail.com FoSC 13 of 13. From:Robin Weldin To:City Council; Jeneise Briggs Subject:Public Comment pause and restrictions Date:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:58:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Timeline for Bremerton’s city council’s undemocratic, unconstitutional and illegal “pausing” of the publics right to freely comment at a council meeting and Planning Commission public meetings. September 9, 2025 - the council received a 21 page letter from King Larson ( SWG ), his principal partner and conflict of interest appointment to Bremerton’s Planning Commission, Jack Paauw and Larson’s venture, investment partner and Waterman Mitigation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eEc8Mp_kjRUavJrlw66u-xcCHu6cywt1/view? usp=sharing In summary, along with a lot of exhibits of “brazen, hostile and aggressive” city resident’s art and social media, they told you to shut up and shut us ( homeless, environment, tenant and shoreline advocates who come to council meeting citing a public records evidence trail of city / SoundWest Group / KEDA alliance corruption, breaking of shoreline laws, whimsical creation of partial law that favors developers, eliminating due process law, enacting laws against the homeless that discriminate, dehumanize and criminalize residents that can no longer afford to live indoors ). You accommodated them in every way, except to give them a security escort to and from the council. September 17th - Advocates for the homeless call out the Bremerton’s “one voice” 2 year gaslighting lie about not being able to use the money allotted for public bathrooms for the homeless ( a UN human right, along with sanitation and shelter ) We finally realized that the council, who blamed the mayor for 2 years about not implementing public bathroom ordinance didn’t compute and that is because it is the councils duty to enact law and the mayors duty to implement it. The mayor cannot veto or implement with the council enacting the law. Council rep Chamberlin then goes to her private business ( Heathen’s Bakery) social media with a with fake Karen “white tears” saying that she was afraid of “him” ( through the thread, everyone knew that “him” was Jose Camacho ) and called him an “extremist”and “domestic terrorist”. Mr. Camacho is Puerto Rican and calling a non-caucasian a “domestic terrorist” is extremely dangerous. https://youtu.be/GvVxpF7rAh0?si=Su-D_HO0FgjYSCnX Jose Camacho is a resident of Bremerton and has been coming to council ever since he found an illegible, city building permit 21 day comment period that only said “student housing and Rice Fergus Miller” lying face down on the ground on a parcel that should have had a SSDP recreation shoreline permit. The neighbor's concerns were silenced by what we were to find out later was an illegal isolation rig to Bremerton’s 2021 Shoreline Master Plan for one favored opportunity zone developer, Arthur Wesley Larson Esquire / Sound West Group. Our then district 3 council person, Jeff Coughlin, who was on the 2021 Planning Commission and bought a house in an illegal “interrupted buffer” one year later ( “isolated buffers” are made up shoreline isolation precedents that created by the illegal 2021 SMP isolation rig of Larson’s parcels ) doubled down, along with the mayor and DCD public officials, on agreed upon gaslighting of concerned residents who were negatively affected by the elimination of SMA law and protections that would have taken their valid concerns into consideration under an SSDP ( Substantial Shoreline Development Permit ). We both, Mr. Camacho and I, have been coming since discovering this city’s 2021 SMP rig and I witnessed this city’s cruel, inhumane and unconstitutional anti camping ordinance sweep that destroyed the MLK homeless tent community resident’s survival gear, memories, documents, phones and laptops and killed a homeless resident’s pet cat, right at the beginning of winter 2023. Since September of 2023, Mr. Camacho, a former Chicago law researcher for both a plaintiff firm and SSI law, has been coming to comment in council. Neither he or any other homeless or environmental advocate has called you “idiots”, but to remind this council of the oath you all took to represent all of us impartially, upholding both US and WA state constitutional law. We tried to stay ahead of the many harms that the council was rubber stamping from the DCD for market rate developers and against the local residents of this city and our fragile shoreline and wildlife buffers. Mr. Camacho and homeless and environmental advocates have only ever came to council prepared with cited city public records, eyewitness testimony of Bremerton’s persecution of the homeless and an evidence trail of Bremerton’s DCD rigging Bremerton’s 2023 Shoreline Master Plan, misuse of public monies, the mfte gift of no property tax for market rate developers for 8 years and so much more corruption and law breaking that we struggle to keep up. We were often only gained enough information to be able to meaningfully comment while sitting in the council chambers just before this councils already agreed upon vote. Jose Camacho is only a threat to those who break WA State laws and US and WA constitutional law. Mr. Camacho has always been more interested in protecting people and our fragile environment than money, which is why profit and greed motivated developer / investors, like Arthur Wesley Larson Esquire / Sound West Group, look down on him as if he’s nothing. He is dangerous to them, because he cannot be corrupted. Oct. 1 2025 - Public Comment was “paused”, not due to the antisemite / racist who called in from wherever on Zoom, but due to Sound West Groups 21 page letter of demands to the council. The council met all of their demands except to give them a “private escort” to council meetings. The public state varied “staff was unsafe”, “council were emotionally drained”, “council couldn’t get to doing business”. The Bremerton council’s oath of office that you all swears to, tells you to do your duties impartially and uphold the US and WA State constitutions”. If council members used their oath of office as their guide in representing all Bremerton residents, there would be no reason for any of us to have to come to council every single week. It is actually hard to keep up with the lies, gaslighting, misinformation and law breaking of our US and WA state laws that are supposed to protect us and this city government’s corruption due to favoritism for one “legacy family” investment developer, his principal and venture partner investors and the present day Tammany Hall city / KEDA alliance “development community”. We, the local residents of Bremerton who are not “development community” insiders, have no Thomas Nast to protect us from elected politicians and public officials that make and break laws to harm us. US constitution, 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” US constitutional law is superior to the whims of this local council and attorney’s office. Your oath of office requires you, as public servants and elected politicians , to uphold it. Article 1. Section 5 of WA state constitution: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” WA Constitutional law is superior to the whims of this local council and city government. Your oath of office requires that each member of this council uphold it. WA states Open Public Meetings Act: RCW 42.30.010 Legislative declaration. The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. For these reasons, even when not required by law, public agencies are encouraged to incorporate and accept public comment during their decision-making process.” WA state OpMA laws and protections are superior to the whims of this local city government and council. In November, Mr. Camacho and I attended a Planning Commission meeting and as I walked in first, Rick Tift was just proposing to take away the Call to the Public. Before they voted, I walked up to the podium and said “ I object to that”. Mr. Camacho walked in and asked directly “are you taking away the public comment”. He was told by Tift to “sit down” and they continued with the vote to take away democracy in the city of Bremerton. https://youtu.be/oQD20swDJQs?si=u-LrabmMeJ-qFaCM When one Planning Commissioner mentioned at the end of the Planning Commission that “taking away public comment, he was told by Andrea Spencer that Kylie Finnell said that they didn’t have to provide public comment. https://youtu.be/hN04FzhS3SA?si=-WMlqm- XU9wHGqW5When I tried to speak to Garret Jackson amending Bremerton’s SMP, using the same consultant, under a different name as the DCD used between 2019 and 2021 to rig Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan by isolating King Larson’s proposed Evergreen Pointe recreational shoreline parcels from Shoreline Management Act law and protections … Rick Tift, then Planning Commissioner, tried to gaslight ( lie ) that I could only talk about landscaping, because that was what Garrett Jackson slipped his further illegal and deceptive SMP ammendment references into. Another thing about the Planning Commission is that there is no way to email a written comment to it’s members, as I found out when trying to submit an email about the covert amendment to favor developers at their last meeting. The Bremerton city council continued to allow the public to comment on agenda items to the end of 2025, but considering the vagueness of most consent agenda item and general business item descriptions, the public was not meaningful information to make informed comments. Sometimes, we only learn about what the council is voting on when a presenter is discussing the agenda item and often that is trying to read between the lines that the city doesn’t want us to know. We learn more from being able to hear each others comment, because some of us have had to become experts through public record requests and reading law and others give eyewitness testimony of rents that they can no longer afford or cannot qualify for, some are witnesses to police harassment from the broadly defined and unconstitutional anti camping ordinances and some homeless resident describe the dehumanization, criminalization and losing limbs and seeing friends and family members die of exposure in cold temperatures and rain. This council, by taking away our ability to come to council meeting and hear each other and hear presenters and then comment, is a violation of our right to information and to participate freely in city governments as citizens. The only benefactors are King Larson, his principal partners and venture investment partners under the Sound West Group umbrella. At the end of 2025, the consent agenda items began to be put into vague block groupings, so if a member of the public did want to comment on 3 or 4 agenda items out of a grouping of 8 … they were unable to do so. This is also a violation of the public’s right to participate in public city meetings under OPMA. In January, 2026, the ability for the public to comment on agenda items was further restricted to only being able to comment over email in a written comment, further isolating the public from information gained at the council meeting and isolating us from each other. This left out members of the public who are blind or low vision, with disabilities that make typing a hardship, people who just want to come to the council meeting and comment if they hear an issue that they care about, residents without access to internet and therefore email, etc. Then, another restriction … the public could only comment on an agenda item if they met a deadline of noon, the day before the council’s 5:30 pm meeting. The council could still decide to add, change or eliminate an agenda item on a whim, right before the council meeting. The current council meetings do not represent a democracy and have become an echo chamber for the city and developers doing “business” that benefits only them. So, here we are. Yet again this council and city attorneys are having a study session where they will be trying to figure out how to cherry pick our US constitutional first Amendment, Wa state constitutional free speech laws and protections ( Section 1 , article 5 ) and WA’s Open Public Meeting Act law ( OPMA ) to silence Bremerton’s residents by undemocratically and illegally violating our free speech rights and ability to gain meaningful information to participate in our local government. At the moment, there is no democracy in Bremerton, only the tyranny of the “legacy family” ruling class that is now installed in our city government and who our politicians and public officials bend over backwards, breaking and making local laws to serve them. I would like to adopt and incorporate as my own the comments to the February 11th study session by Kimmy Seibens and Jose Camacho. I would also like to adopt a comment made by Marwan Cameron that was chillingly a premonition of this city’s current violation of our democracy. https://youtu.be/z4oM_9sEUO0?si=tgy1nKnnKHJDtg3B Our free speech rights and protections and ability to participate in our local government and council votes that directly affect all of us, is the cornerstone of our fragile democracy that hangs by a thread. Without it, we only have the tyranny of the ruling class. Sincerely, Robin Weldin Friends of Smith Cove District 3 resident of Bremerton Published for January 14 Study Session Item A15 Public Comments From: Travis Merrigan <bikebremerton@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 7:34 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Free speech and ugly words Council, When I first heard Brem City Council meetings were cancelling public recognition, I was disappointed. It is a valuable opportunity to discuss important city topics that don't happen to be in front of Council that day. But then I heard the ugly words, spoken by angry men. I changed my mind about public recognition. I heard a speaker tonight claiming the change to city council meetings violated his free speech violations. But he makes the common mistake of confusing his right to speak, with the city's responsibility to broadcast their words. Bremerton has no such responsibility and I greatly appreciate not being required to hear angry, horrible thoughts, which are completely unrelated to the business of the city. Some might say that you, as elected officials, have to listen to that garbage. And that may be true about an encounter you have in the street. But a City Council meeting isn't a free- for-all, and elected officials aren't the only ones in the city's chambers. Elected officials have the responsibility to look after the safety and well-being of all your constituents. So when people use slurs (I heard the 'K' word tonight) or disparage whole groups of people, they forfeit their privilege to use the public microphone to broadcast their views. Besides, look at me, making my opinions known, exercising my free speech right now. Nobody is muzzled. I do hope those hateful words and personal attacks don't affect you personally. Instead, listen to the (often unspoken) words of the thousands of people who voted for you across all your elections. In the wise words of the great western philosopher Tayor Swift, 'Haters gonna hate, shake it off.' I do hope public comment comes back to City Council someday. But just like the shoe bomber made 500m people take off their shoes at airports, spiteful jerks ruin opportunities for others, sigh. City Council can be tough. Y'all be tough too, we've got work to do. Onward, Travis Merrigan Bremerton