HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/17/2001 City of Kent
City Council Meeting
Agenda
40
KENT
WASH I N G T O N
Mayor Jim White
Councilmembers
Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly
Tom Brotherton Judy Woods
Tim Clark Rico Yingling
April 17, 2001
Office of the City Clerk
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
KEN T April 17, 2001
WASNINOTON Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark
Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling
*******************************************************************
1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2 . ROLL CALL
3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC
4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. King County Councilmember Les Thomas
B. South King County Blood Bank Certificate of
Appreciation
C. Introduction of Appointees
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes - Approval
B. Bills - Approval
C. No Parking Zones - Ordinance ,364
D. Tacoma Second Supply Project Advance Funding
Agreement - Authorize
E. Police Records and Jail Management Systems - Authorize
F. Corrections Facility Roof Budget Change - Authorize
G. Police Corp Program Funds - Accept
H. Schuster Self Storage Bill of Sale - Accept
I . 118th Avenue Sewer Extension - Accept as Complete
J. Van Replacement Budget Adjustment - Authorize
K. Year 2001 Parks Grant Applications - Authorize
L. Fire Inspection Interlocal Agreement for 2001 -
Authorize
Arts Commission Appointment - Confirm
( /1104L ba k c X&O
7 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. LID 351 Bond Ordi an a and Purchase Contract
8 . IDS
4 Al South 277th Street Improvement Project
(continued next page)
t
SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED
9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS //A-• ��m�GY�try Sfi'cw�w'�
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION U
A. Land Acquisition
13 . LOURNMEN,14
V
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in
the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this
page.
�- Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the
City Clerk' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725 . For TDD relay
service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at
1-800-833-6388 .
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B) FROM THE PUBLIC
I, _
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A) KING COUNTY COUNCILMEMBER LES THOMAS
B) SOUTH KING COUNTY BLOOD BANK CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES
r
CONSENT CALENDAR
i
6. City Council Action:/� _ , / n
Councilmember v moves, Councilmember C� _
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through df.
Discussion
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
April 3, 2001, and approval of a correction to the minutes of
March 6, 2001, referring to the Sound Transit Improvements
Condemnation Ordinance. The Ordinance number should be 3547
rather than 3546 .
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through March 30 and
paid on March 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on
April 3, 2001 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/30/01 510599-510882 $ 819,485 .48
3/30/01 510883-511289 1 , 938 ,431 . 92
$2, 757, 917 .40
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent, Washington
April 3 , 2001
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order
at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present : Amodt,
Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling. Others
present : Chief Administrative Officer McFall, City Attorney
Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Deputy
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Martin, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Finance Director
Miller and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director
Hodgson. Approximately 70 people were at the meeting.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
McFall requested that Kentview (Pod H) Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Amendments be added to the agenda.
There was no objection and it was added as Other
Business Item 7B.
Robert O'Brien and Ted Kogita requested that items
regarding the use of taxpayer money be added to the
agenda. There were no objections and the items were
added as Continued Communications Items 11A and 11B.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Kincr County Councilmember Les Thomas. Mayor White
announced that Mr. Thomas is unable to attend this
meeting and will attend a future meeting.
Kent Sister City Association Youth Art Awards. Joanne
Schaut, International Program Coordinator, introduced
the winners of the Kent Sister City Association Youth
Art Awards, who displayed their artwork. She also
introduced representatives from four of Kent ' s Sister
Cities . Mayor White commended the students and the
Sister Cities Association.
Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Tammy
Johnson of Public Works Operations has been chosen as
April Employee of the Month. He noted that Ms . Johnson
takes great pride in her work and is eager to help
others .
National Disaster Preparedness Month. The Mayor read a
proclamation noting that citizens need to be prepared
to be self-sufficient for at least three days after a
1
1
Kent City Council Minutes April 3 , 2001
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
natural or man-made disaster and that City employees
should be prepared so they can continue to provide vital
services . He proclaimed the month of April 2001 as
National Disaster Preparedness Month in the City and
encouraged citizens to increase their awareness of
safety measures . Fire Chief Angelo expressed thanks for
Council ' s support of emergency management training.
Equal Pay Day. Mayor White read a proclamation stating
that women earned 724- for every dollar earned by men in
1999 and encouraged employers to review their pay
practices related to pay equity. He declared April 3 ,
2001 as Equal Pay Day and presented the proclamation to
Judy Dries of Soroptimist, who encouraged citizens to
contact their legislators.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through T.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of March 20 , 2001 .
BILLS OF SALE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
Kentview Pod A Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale
for Kentview Pod A submitted by KV Homes A, LLC for
continuous operation and maintenance of 2 , 510 feet of
sanitary sewers and release of bonds after the expira-
tion period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is located west of Frager Road
and south of South 216th
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
Kentview Pod B Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale
for Kentview Pod B submitted by KV Townhomes B, LLC for
continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 136 feet of
sanitary sewers and release of bonds after the expira-
tion period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is located west of Frager Road
and south of South 216th Street .
2
Kent City Council Minutes April 3 , 2001
BILLS OF SALE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
Safeguard Self Storage II Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill
of Sale for Safeguard Self Storage II submitted by
Plemmons Industries, Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 805 feet of watermain, 25 feet of storm
sewers and release of bonds after the expiration period,
as recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 422 Washington Avenue North.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6Q)
Albrech Short Plat Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of
Sale for Albrech Short Plat submitted by Reichert
Construction, Inc for continuous operation and
maintenance of 350 feet for street improvements and
350 feet of storm sewers and release of bonds after
the expiration period, as recommended by the Public
Works Director. The project is located at 10446 SE
244th Street .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6R)
Hunters Grove II Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale
for Hunter' s Grove II submitted by Peter Milovsoroff for
continuous operation and maintenance of 252 feet of
sanitary sewer, and release of bonds after the expira-
tion period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is located at SE 230th Place,
east of 116th Avenue SE.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6S)
Construction Machinery Inc. Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the
Bill of Sale for Construction Machinery Inc. submitted
by Cook Inlet Region Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 420 feet of street improvements, 11 feet
of storm sewers and release of bonds after the expira-
tion period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is located at 22101 84th Avenue
South.
WATER
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N)
Tacoma 2nd Supply Project Pine Purchase. AUTHORIZATION
for the Mayor to advise the City of Tacoma to proceed
with the purchase of a sufficient quantity of Second
3
Kent City Council Minutes April 3, 2001
WATER
Supply project water pipe for the early phase portion of
the Second Supply Project, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 60)
Tacoma 2nd Supply Public Works Trust Fund Loan
Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the
Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement for the Tacoma
Second Supply Project, upon concurrence of the language
therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works
Director, as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
This agreement will be executed if and when the
Legislature passes and the Governor signs SHB 1001,
which authorizes the loan.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6P)
Tacoma 2nd Supply Protect Memorandum of Agreement.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of
Agreement among the Second Supply Project Participants,
upon concurrence of the language therein by the City
Attorney and the Public Works Director, as recommended
by the Public Works Committee.
TRANSPORTATION
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A)
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant, 277th
Corridor. The Public Works Department has received a
TIB Grant Agreement for the construction phase of the
South 277th Corridor, SR-167 to Auburn Way North. The
Public Works Committee has recommended that the Mayor be
authorized to sign the grant agreement, that staff be
directed to accept the grant, and that a budget be
established for the funds to be used on the South 277th
Corridor, SR-167 to Auburn Way North project .
Upon Clark' s question, Wickstrom explained that bids
will be awarded on May 1st, that construction would
start within a month or two, and that the road between
Auburn Way North and the Valley Freeway will be closed
for through traffic for approximately two years . McFall
pointed out that the amount of the grant is $9, 082, 000
4
Kent City Council Minutes April 3, 2001
TRANSPORTATION
for assisting in the construction of this project . The
Mayor commended Wickstrom and his staff for taking over
the project from Auburn and for shortening the time
line.
CLARK MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign the TIB
Grant Agreement for the S. 277th Corridor, SR-167 to
Auburn Way North, that staff be directed to accept the
grant and that a budget be established for the funds to
be used on the S . 277th Corridor project . Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I)
Seattle/King County Hazardous Waste Management Grant
Aareement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the
Seattle/King County Hazardous Waste Management Grant
Agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and esta-
blish a budget for $39,421 . 00, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee. This grant funds the two city-
wide Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Recycling
Events .
RECYCLING
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
King County Recycling Grant Agreement. AUTHORIZATION
for the Mayor to sign the King County Recycling Grant
Agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and esta-
blish a budget for $117, 208 . 00, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee . This grant funds the City' s
Optional Recycling Events and Business Recycling
Program.
BOUNDARY
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J)
42nd Avenue South Boundary Lines. PASSAGE of Resolution
No. 1585 providing for modification of the boundaries
along 42nd Avenue South, and authorizing the Mayor to
execute an agreement with the City of SeaTac to adjust
the common boundary lines along said right-of-way, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee .
5
Kent City Council Minutes April 3, 2001
PLAT
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K)
Pacific Parke Final Plat (FSU-98-13/KIVA #2003099) .
APPROVAL of Staff ' s recommendation of approval with
conditions of the Pacific Parke Final Subdivision and
authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat
mylar.
This application was submitted by Pacific Industries .
The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions
on the preliminary plat on July 31, 1999 .
ANNEXATION
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6T)
DeMarco Annexation (AN-2000-1) . ACCEPTANCE of the
annexation petition for the proposed DeMarco Annexation,
which has been signed by the owners of at least 60W of the
assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area and
direction to staff to prepare and file a "Notice of
Intent" for the proposed DeMarco Annexation with the
County Boundary Review Board. On November 21, 2000, the
Council received a valid notice of intent to form the
annexation area, which was signed by owners of not less
than 10% of the assessed property valuation within the
proposed DeMarco Annexation area. As with other City
annexations, the proposed annexation area will be subject
to assumption of its proportionate share of the City' s
existing indebtedness .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B)
(ADDED ITEM)
Kentview (Pod H) Comvrehensive Plan & Zoning Amendments
CPA-2000-2 (A) /CPZ-2000-1. McFall explained that Pod H
was tabled at a previous Council meeting pending review
of the City' s agricultural land use plan and policy. He
said the Land Use and Planning Board has requested more
time to analyze the overall policy and staff recommends
that the Kentview Pod H plan amendment application be
removed from the table and referred to the Land Use and
Planning Board for a recommendation. BROTHERTON MOVED
to remove the matter of Pod H from the table and send it
to the Land Use and Planning Board for further
6
Kent City Council Minutes April 3 , 2001
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
consideration at its earliest possible time. Woods
seconded. Brotherton said that the owners of the land
have changed their proposal, and that the land is
currently unusable for agriculture . His motion then
carried.
TECHNOLOGY
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F)
Document Management System Storage Devices Agreement
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign agreements with FYI
Image for the purchase of a High Performance Disk System
and Magneto-Optical Jukebox, subject to City Attorney
approval of the documents, as recommended by the
Operations Committee.
On February 21, 2001, the Information Technology
Department released a Request for Quotes (RFQ) for a
High Performance Disk System and Magneto-Optical
Jukebox. The City received four responses to the RFQ.
However, only one response included all of the specified
r components . After reviewing the quotes, the Information
Technology Department recommends awarding the RFQ for a
High Performance Disk System and Magneto-Optical Jukebox
to F.Y. I . Image in the amount of $71, 154 . 58 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G)
Copier Uparades in Print Shoo. AUTHORIZATION to
execute lease/rental agreements for new and upgraded
copiers in the print shop. These copiers will increase
flexibility, speed and service to customers and are
within the current operating budget .
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
(CONSENT CALENDAR — ITEM 6L)
Interlocal Agreement for Water Fowl Management.
AUTHORIZATION for the Parks Director to enter into an
Interlocal Agreement for waterfowl (Canada Goose)
management to reduce/alleviate property damage and human
health and safety concerns including contamination of
potable water and recreational areas in King County.
Wildlife Services will provide a damage control program,
which will include technical assistance, population
r monitoring and control .
7
Kent City Council Minutes April 3, 2001
POLICE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M)
Interlocal Agreement For Valley Special Response Team.
APPROVAL of and authorization to execute the Valley
Special Response Team Operational Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement . The parties to this agreement are the Port
of Seattle and the Municipalities of Auburn, Kent,
Renton, and Tukwila, each of which is a municipal
corporation operating under the laws of the State of
Washington. The purpose of the agreement is to
establish and maintain a multi-jurisdictional Valley
Response Team (Valley SRT) .
FACILITIES
(BIDS - ITEM 8A)
Phase II Parking Lot Expansion Kent Municipal Court and
King County District Court Aukeen Division The
bid opening was held on March 27 with nine (9) bids
received. Katspan, Inc. was the low bidder at
$264, 370 . 00, plus Washington State Sales Tax.
The Parks Director recommends contracting with ^�
Katspan, Inc . for the Phase II Parking Lot Expansion
Kent Municipal Court and King County District Court
Aukeen Division. WOODS MOVED to award the Phase II
Parking Lot Expansion an Kent Municipal Court and King
County District Court Aukeen Division, bid to Katspan,
Inc . , in the amount of $264, 370, plus Washington State
Sales Tax. Brotherton seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through March 15 and paid on March 15, 2001,
after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 20,
2001 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check•Numbers Amount
3/15/01 509829-510114 $1, 374, 828 . 18
3/15/01 510115-510598 1 , 312 , 045 .40
$2 , 686, 873 . 58 '*
8
Kent City Council Minutes April 3 , 2001
FINANCE
Approval of checks issued for Aayroll for March 1
through March 15 and paid on March 20, 2001 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/20/01 Checks 250588-250920 $ 279, 843 . 65
3/20/01 Advices 108870-109512 1 , 021 , 715 . 62
$1, 301, 559 .27
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A)
(ADDED ITEM)
Use of Ta=aver Funds - Staff. Robert O'Brien, 1131
Seattle Street, suggested looking at reorganizing the
administrative tree since the Chief Administrative
Officer is leaving the City. He said the Chief
Administrative Officer function is a greater salary drag
in the City of Kent than it is in the cities of Seattle
and Portland, and suggested discussing the subject at a
workshop.
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B)
(ADDED ITEM)
Use of Taxpayer Funds - Attorney Fees. Ted Kogita,
25227 Reith Road, said the Council voted 6-1 to pay all
attorneys fees and fines for five professional employees
for indiscretion on their jobs . He said the employees
were charged with defamation, interference against
attorney Hollis Duncan for performing his duties to gain
information for his clients, and false litigation.
Kogita said that the City of Kent has paid $80, 000 to
settle McFall ' s indiscretion against his wife, and that
the Mayor and Council authorized paying a possible total
of $1, 750, 000 plus attorneys fees . He said the only
logical reason they agreed to do so seems to be cover-up
or illusion. He demanded that the City Council rescind
the vote to pay all fines and attorneys fees for McFall,
Brubaker, Fitzpatrick, Lubovich and Chu, and said that
suspension without pay until the case is settled should
be the course to take. He said that by voting to pay
the costs, the Mayor and Council acknowledge the
infamous five ' s conduct as City of Kent policy. He
said the citizens of Kent will not stand for a double
standard - one set of rules for blue collar workers and
9
Kent City Council Minutes April 3, 2001
FINANCE
another for professional employees . He asked if the
Council and Mayor could be covering up misdeeds of the
infamous five at taxpayer expense. He stated that the
City of Renton contracts all legal work to keep costs
down, and that the City of Des Moines has one attorney,
but that the City of Kent has three attorneys and still
farms out all litigation. He said the goal of the Mayor
and the Council is more taxes to cover fat City govern-
ment programs, over-bloated administration costs, and
misdeeds by the City' s professional employees. He
concluded with this quote: "If you do not acknowledge
the problem, someone will exploit it . "
REPORTS
Operations Committee. Yingling noted that the Committee
meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month at
4 : 00 p.m. , and that the next meeting will be on April
17th.
Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next
meeting will be at 5 : 00 p.m. on April loth.
Parks Committee. Woods announced that the April 10th
meeting has been cancelled and that a meeting will be
held on April 24th at 4 : 00 p.m.
Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Councilmembers
of an executive session of approximately ten minutes
regarding pending litigation and said that no action is
expected after the Executive Session.
Fire Chief Angelo invited and encouraged Councilmembers
to attend Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT)
training on Wednesday nights in September.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 7 :30 p.m.
and reconvened at 7 :44 p.m.
Freedom of Speech. Clark noted that Mr. Kogita has
previously declared that he wants to hold on to his
right to speak, and said he is taken aback with the
approach Mr. Kogita has used. Clark pointed out that
10
Kent City Council Minutes April 3 , 2001
r
EXECUTIVE SESSION
there are restraints on freedom of speech, the most
obvious of which is slander. He explained that from the
public viewpoint, a citizen makes an allegation and the
Council does not respond because it has been their
practice to let the public speak. He stated it is
offensive to have allegations ascribed to the actions of
the Council, and not to respect the court process where
some of these issues have been hammered out under the
fairest process that this country has created. He said
he is serving notice that what has taken place has not
gone unnoticed and that some choices may have to be made
to protect the truth.
ADJOURNMENT
WOODS MOVED to adjourn at 7 :45 p.m. Yingling seconded
and the motion carried.
a-Lei-e.L_
i-- Brenda Jac6 r, CMC
City Clerk
11
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: NO PARKING ZONES - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. amending the no
parking zones within the City. The no parking zones presently
contained within Section 9 . 38 . 020 of the Kent City Code are
outdated. Substantial changes needed to be made to this
section; therefore, the proposed ordinance repeals the existing
section and replaces it with a new section.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6C
r^
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, repealing section 9.38.020 of the
Kent City Code in its entirety and enacting a new section
9.38.020 entitled "No parking zones" relating to no
parking zones on certain designated streets.
WHEREAS, the City Council has established no parking zones within
the City of Kent as authorized by state law; and
WHEREAS, additional no parking zones are necessary for the
protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City Code to update
its no parking zones; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.38.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled "No
parking zones," is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. A new section, section 9.38.020, entitled"No parking
zones," is hereby added to the Kent City Code to read as follows:
Sec. 9.38.020. No parking zones. -At such time as the traffic engineer shall
place the appropriate sign or signs, it shall be illegal to park any motor vehicle or other
r 1 No Parking Signs Amendment
vehicle, as those terms are defined in Chapter 46.04 RCW, at any time upon and on
either side of, unless otherwise indicated, the following roadways or portions thereof-
1. 26th Avenue South: both sides from South 272nd Street to 500 feet
north of South 272 Street and on 26th Avenue South from South 272nd Street to end
of 26th Avenue South east side only.
2. 27th Avenue South: from South 240th Street to end of 27th Avenue
South.
3. 28th Avenue South: from South 240th Street to end of 28th Avenue
South.
4. SR 99 (Pacific Highway South): from Kent Des Moines Road (SR 516)
to South 272nd Street.
5. South 240th Street: from 27th Avenue South to I-5.
6. 30th Avenue South: from South 240th Street to Kent-Des Moines Road
(SR 516).
7. Military Road: from South 228th Street to South 272nd Street.
8. 36th Place South: from south 272nd street to 35 Lane South.
9. 42nd Avenue South: from Reith Road to South 260th Street.
10. Cambridge Way 200 feet south of South 262nd Street-west side only.
11. South 268th Street: from Military Road to Princeton Avenue.
12. Reith Road/South 259th Place South/South 260th Street: from SR 99
(Pacific Highway South) to Kent Des Moines Road (SR 516).
13. Lake Fenwick Road: from Reith Road to South 272nd Street,
14. South 272nd Street: from Lake Fenwick Road to 42nd Avenue South -
north side only.
15. Frager Road: from Meeker Street to South 204 Street.
16. Russell Road: from end of street at Green River Trail to James Street.
IT Russell Road: from South 228th Street to South 212th Street.
18. Meeker Street: from Kent Des Moines Road (SR 516) to 6th Avenue
South.
19. 54th Avenue South: from South 228th Street to South 226th Street.
2 No Parking Signs Amendment
20. 58th Place South: from South 226th Street to south end of 58th Place
South.
21. 58th Place South: from Russell Road to South 194th Street.
22. South 226th Street: from 54th Avenue South to 64th Avenue South.
23. Lakeside Boulevard East: from James Street to South 228th Street.
24. Lakeside Boulevard West: from Lakeside Boulevard East to South
228th Street.
25. South 236th Street: from Lakeside Boulevard East to 64th Avenue
South.
26. South 234th Street: from West Valley Highway to east end of street.
27. Landing Way: from 64th Avenue South to West Valley Highway.
28. 62nd Avenue South: from South 190th Street to South 196th Street.
29. 64th Avenue South: from south end of road to South 212th Street.
30. 66th Avenue South: from South 196th Street to South 190th Street.
31. South 188th Street: from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to 72nd
Avenue South and South 188th Street at Burlington Northern Railroad to 80th Place
South.
32. South 190th Street: from West Valley Highway to 72nd Avenue South
and South 190th Street at Burlington Northern Railroad to 80th Avenue South.
33. South 192nd Street: from the west end of the road to 84th Avenue
South.
34. South 194th Street: from 58th Place South to 66th Avenue South.
35. South 194th Street: from west end of Burlington Northern Railroad to
84th Avenue South.
36. South 196th Street: Russell Road/South 200th Street from SR 167 to
Orillia Road.
37. South 202nd Street: from 80th Avenue South to west end of street at
Burlington Northern Railroad.
38. South 204th Street: from West Valley Highway (SR 181 ) to 72nd
Avenue South.
�" 3 No Parking Signs Amendment
39. South 208th Street: from Burlington Northern Railroad to 80th Avenue
South. r'1
40. South 208th Street: from 84th Avenue South to 96th Avenue South
41. South 216th Street: from 84th Avenue South to the west end at
Burlington Northern Railroad.
42. South 216th Street: from 64th Avenue South to 72nd Avenue South.
43. South 220th Street: from West Valley Highway (SR 181 ) to 72nd
Avenue South.
44. South 200th Street: from 80th Avenue South to 84th Avenue South.
45. South 206th Street: from 72nd Avenue South to 77th Avenue South.
46. South 218th Street: from 84th Avenue South to SR 167.
47. South 222nd Street: from Burlington Northern Railroad to SR 167.
48. South 228th Street: from Russell Road to 83rd Avenue South.
49. Smith Street: from 64 Avenue South to Jason Avenue.
50. Sam Street: from West Valley Highway (SR 181/Washington Avenue)
to end of street.
51. West Valley Highway/Washington Avenue: from South 277th Street to
South 180th Street (43rd Avenue South).
52. 72nd170th Avenue South: from South 228th Street to South 180th Street
(43rd Avenue South).
53. 74th Avenue South: from South 259th Street to SR 516.
54. South 259th Street: from 74th Avenue South to East City Limits.
55. 77th Avenue South: from South 212th Street to north end of road.
56. Lincoln Avenue: from Meeker Street to James Street.
57. 4th Avenue South: from SR 516/Willis Street to South 228th Street.
58. Saar Street: from west end of street to 4th Avenue South - south side
only.
59. Meeker Street: from Railroad Avenue South to 1 st Avenue South.
60. Gowe Street: from Railroad Avenue South to 1st Avenue South.
4 No Parking Signs Amendment
61. Gowe Street: from 6th Avenue South to 300 feet east of 6th Avenue
South.
62. Titus Street: from Railroad Avenue South to 1 st Avenue South.
63. 5th Avenue South: from James Street to north end of 5th Avenue South.
64. Interurban Trail Street: from Meeker Street to Smith Street.
65. 6th Avenue South: from Meeker Street to Gowe Street.
66. 76th Avenue South: from South 228th Street to South 212th Street.
67. 80th Avenue South: from South 180th Street (43rd Avenue South) to
South 196th Street and 80th Avenue South from South 200th Street to South 208th
Street.
68. 80th Place South: from 80th Avenue South to 84th Avenue South.
69. 81st Avenue South: from South 200th to South 196th Street.
70. 83rd Avenue South: from South 228th Street to South 224th Street.
71. 88th Avenue South: from James Street to South 218th Street.
72. Novak Lane: from Central Avenue to west end of street.
73. Cloudy Street: from 4th Avenue South to 5th Avenue South.
74. Pioneer Street: from one hundred seventy (170 feet) east of Central
Avenue to State Avenue - south side only and from Central Avenue South to two
hundred feet east of Central Avenue South - north side only.
75. Pioneer Street: from Railroad Avenue to Central Avenue.
76. James Street/Southeast 240th Street: from Russell Road to 148th
Avenue Southeast.
77. 1st Avenue: from the intersection of James Street to the north end of 1st
Avenue South - east side only.
78. 6th Avenue South: from South 228th Street to south end of street.
79. 2nd Avenue South: from South 228th Street to south end of street.
80. Gowe Street: from Railroad Avenue South to Central Avenue - south
side only, and from Gowe Street/Central Avenue South to Kennebeck Avenue South.
81. Kennebeck Avenue South: from Smith Street to Ward Street.
�" 5 No Parking Signs Amendment
82. Harrison Street: 200 feet west of 2nd Avenue to 2nd Avenue - north
side only.
83. South 224th Street: from 83rd Avenue South to east end of road.
84. South 212th Street: from west City limits to east City limits.
85. 84th Avenue South/East Valley Highway/Central Avenue South: from
South 180th Street (43rd Avenue South) to the Green River Bridge.
86. South Central Place: from South 266th Street to the end of South
Central Place.
87. Alder Lane/South 262nd Street: from Central Avenue to 500 feet east of
Central Avenue South.
88. Willis Street: from 4th Avenue South to Central Avenue
89. Titus Street: from 3rd Avenue South to 4th Avenue South north side
only, Police Vehicles parking only.
90. Titus Street: from Gowe Street to Reiten Road- southeast side only.
91. Titus Street/Jason Avenue South: from Smith Street to Reiten Road.
92. Maple Street: from Woodland Way to Garfield Avenue South - south
side only.
93. 94th Avenue South: from Canyon Drive to James Street.
94. 97th Place South: from Canyon Drive to 100th Avenue Southeast.
95. Southeast 260th Street: from 100th Avenue Southeast/97th Place South
to 108th Avenue Southeast.
96. 100th Avenue: from Southeast 248th to the north City limits.
97. 101st Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 256th Street (SR 516) to
Southeast 260th Street.
98. Southeast 239th Street: from 102nd Avenue Southeast to 104th Avenue
Southeast.
99. 102nd Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 240th Street to the north end
of 102nd Avenue Southeast.
100. South 252nd Street: from Canyon Drive (SR 516) to east end of road.
101. Canyon Drive: from Hazel Avenue to 101 st Avenue Southeast.
6 No Parking Signs Amendment ""`�
102. Southeast 256th Street: from 101st Avenue southeast to 148th Avenue
�. Southeast.
103. 104th Avenue Southeast (SR 515): from Southeast 272nd Street to
Southeast 228th Street.
104. 108th Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 281st Street to Kent-Kangley
Road(SR 516).
105. 108th Avenue Southeast: from South 244th Street to Southeast 236th
Place.
106. 109th Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 256th Street to Southeast
248th Street.
107. 112th Avenue Southeast: from south end of 112th Avenue Southeast to
Southeast 232nd Street.
108. Southeast 244th Street: from 120th Avenue Southeast to 116th Avenue
Southeast.
109. 114th Avenue Southeast: from Kent-Kangley Road to south end of
street.
110. 116th Avenue Southeast: from Kent-Kangley Road to Southeast 227th
Place.
111. 117th Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 244th Street to end of street.
112. 118th Court Southeast: from Southeast 244th Street to end of street.
113. 119th Way/120th Place Southeast: from. Southeast 244th Street to
Southeast 244th Street.
114. 119th Court Southeast: from Southeast 244th Street to end of street.
115. 120th Avenue Southeast: from the gate on Southeast 268th Street to
Southeast 270th Street north and east side only.
116. Southeast 236th Street: from 104th Avenue Southeast (SR 515) to
108th Avenue Southeast south side only.
117. Southeast 248th Street: in front of George Daniel's Elementary School.
118. Woodland Way: from Maple Street to the driveway of Scenic Hill
School.
�' 7 No Parking Signs Amendment
119. Southeast 267th Street: from 102nd Avenue Southeast to 104th Avenue
Southeast - north side only.
120. South 277th and Southeast 277th Street: from Auburn Way to 116th
Avenue Southeast.
121. Southeast 263rd Street: from 124th Avenue Southeast to 500 feet west
of 124th Avenue Southeast.
122. Southeast 264th Street: from 124th Avenue Southeast to 127th Avenue
Southeast north side only.
123. 124th Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 248th Street to Southeast
282nd Street.
124. 132nd Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 236th Street to Southeast
288th Street.
125. 140th Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 256th Street to Southeast
260th Street.
126. 144th Avenue Southeast: from Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) to
Southeast 288th Street.
127. 148th Avenue Southeast: from South 256th Street to Southeast 240th
Street.
128. 152nd Avenue Southeast/152nd Way: from Kent-Kangley Road (SR
516) to SR 18.
129. 148th Avenue Southeast/152nd Way: from North City Boat Ramp to
Kent-Kangley Road(SR 516).
SECTION 3. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
8 No Parking Signs Amendment
SECTION 4. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
�- PASSED: day of , 2001.
APPROVED: day of 2001.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2001.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P.ICivil\Ordinance W oParkingS ignsAmendment I20600.doc
9 No Parking Signs Amendment
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: TACOMA SECOND SUPPLY PROJECT ADVANCE FUNDING
AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorize the Mayor to execute the Cost Sharing
Agreement for the Howard Hansen Dam Pre-Construction
Engineering & Design upon concurrence of the language therein
by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director.
3 . EXHIBITS: Cost Sharing agreement and Public Works Director
memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
r-
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6D
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director
Phone:253-856-5500
K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASHINGTON
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Date: March 15, 2001
To: Public Works:gCmmittee
From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Regarding: Tacoma Second Supply Project Advance Funding
To keep subject project moving ahead, over the last several years the partners
(Seattle, Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utility District and Kent) exclusive of
Tacoma have been funding key elements of the work. Those key elements include
the continued work per securing the permits and the local match of the Corp of
Engineers design work on the modifications to Howard Hansen Dam. We did so
because at the time Tacoma felt they couldn't continue to carry the financial burden
of implementing the project having spent approximately $26,000,000 to date without
its partners sharing in the risk. Our share for 2001 is $500,000 for which monies
exist within the our project fund to cover same. The attached draft agreement
memorializes this and it's the Public Works Department's recommendation that the
Mayor be authorized to execute same upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the
Public Works Director of the language therein.
Hopefully, with a decision by the Services (National Marine Fisheries Service and US
Fish and Wildlife Service) in April on the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and
Incidental Take (IT) permit, this should be the last of this interim funding.
MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to execute the agreement
reflected in the Public Works Director's memo upon his and the City Attorney's
concurrence with the language therein.
0701-mp
COST SHARING AGREEMENT
Howard Hansen Dam Pre-Construction Engineering &Design
This Agreement, dated this day of 2001 is made and entered into
by and between the CITY OF KENT (KENT), and the CITY OF TACOMA,
(TACOMA), both Washington municipal corporations.
WHEREAS, KENT is engaged in the business of providing water service to the public
located within certain areas of King County in the State of Washington and
TACOMA is engaged in the business of providing water service to the public located
in certain areas of Pierce and King Counties, in the State of Washington; and
WHEREAS, TACOMA has contracted with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers to partially fund pre-construction Engineering & Design necessary for the
development of additional water storage At-the Howard Hansen Dam; and
WHEREAS, TACOMA continues to work on permits associated with the Second")
Supply Project; and
WHEREAS, I<ENT desires to aid in the funding of the Howard Hansen Dam work
and the permit work, as does the Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utilitv
District and the City of Seattle; and
WHEREAS, TACOMA and KENT have mutually determined that a shared funding
relationship among themselves and Nvith the other above named water utilities and
the United States Army Corps of Engineers is desirable and mutually beneficial;
NOW THEREFORE, KENT and TACOMA agree as follow:
1. KENT Share of Costs
a. KENT shall contribute S500,000 in the year 2001.
b. The funds shall be paid to TACOMA by May 1, 2001.
2. Rights Acquired. The funds provided shall be credited to Kent's eventual
financial obligation as a participant in the Second Supply Project, as determined in
the Second Supply Project Agreement, currently under development.
3. Use of Funds. Tacoma shall use the funds solely to fulfill its obligations for a share
in the funding of the Pre-Construction Engineering & Design to be performed under
the provisions of the agreement between Tacoma and the Corps of Engineers. The _
Cost Sharing Agn•emcnt Page I of 3
executed agreement between Tacoma and the Corps of Engineers, for the work
referenced herein, shall be incorporated in full into this agreement by this reference.
Tacoma shall also use the funds to secure permits for the implementation of other
elements of the Second Supply Project.
4. Tacoma's Obligations
a. Tacoma shall be responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the contract
with the Corps.
b. Tacoma will provide Kent with any documentation connected with the
contract, including but not limited to invoices, reports and study results
if requested by Kent, as soon as practicable after being provided to
Tacoma. Approved as to Form and Legality:
C. Tacoma will provide periodic progress reports as information becomes
available.
5. Participation of Others
a. This agreement to share in the funding of both the Corps work and the
permit work is predicated on the participation of all of the named water
utilities, specifically the Cities of Tacoma, Seattle and Kent and the
Lakehaven Utility District and Covington Water District.
b. In the event that any of the named participants fails to contribute its
share the remaining participants shall have ninety (90) days to meet,
confer, and agree to an amendment re-distributing the share of the
defaulting participant in proportion to its current share in the Second
Supply Project.
C. In the event that no agreement is reached within ninety (90) days
Tacoma shall offer each remaining participant the opportunity to re-
distribute the share of the defaulting participant in proportion to its
current share in the Second Supply Project.
d. If, after the remaining participants have elected to proceed under either
`b' or 'c' above there is any remaining share Tacoma may at its
discretion offer that share to new participants.
e. If no agreement for re-distributing the unpaid share can be reached and
no new participant can be found, Tacoma shall have the option to
cancel this agreement and refund to the participants the proportional
share of any refunds received from the Corps pursuant to the agreement.
f. Any such adjustment shall be documented by a contract amendment
signed by each party and serially numbered.
Cost Sharing Agreement Page 2 of 3
G. Disputes
a. The parties agree that their designees shall meet and confer to consider a
resolution of any boundary disagreement.
b. If the matter is not resolved by this conference, and all good faith efforts
to resolve the matter have been exhausted, then either party may submit
the matter to binding arbitration pursuant to Chapter 7.04 RCW,
provided that in the event of a request for arbitration or mediation,
there shall be full discovery, to the same extent as would be allowed
pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Superior Court, and further
provided that one arbitrator shall be agreed upon between the parties, or
if agreement cannot be reached, the presiding judge for Pierce County
Superior Court shall select the arbitrator.
7. Term
a. The term of this Agreement-shall be the same as that of the Agreement
for a Pre-Construction Engineering Study.
*'1
CITY OF KENT CITY OF TACOMA
By: By:
Jim White Kenneth J. Merry
Title: Mavor Title: Superintendent, Water Division
Date Signed: Date Signed:
Approved as to Form and Legality Approved as to Form and Legality
City Attorney City Attorney
Cost Sharing Agreement Page 3 of 3
3628 South 35th Street P.O. Box 11007
Tacoma, Washington 98411.0007
CITY OF KEN i
" WATER OCT 13 2000
TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DEP
October 10, 2000
Don Wickstram
City of Kent
220 4"Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mr. Wickstmm:
Subject: Projected Partners' Contribution for Second Supply Project in 2001 and 2002
In the past, Tacoma has asked its partners in the Second Supply Project to contribute to
the costs of some of the studies and projects associated with the project which must
continue prior to final approval for construction of the project. In the 2001 and 2002
biennium, Tacoma is asking for your commitment to participate in several aspects of the
Second Supply Project. These aspects of the project should proceed since they are
critical to the schedule for the project and represent a continuation of ongoing efforts.
Approximately $300,000 will be required for ongoing Second Supply Project permitting
i and engineering. Approximately$4.2 million will be required for completion of pre-
construction engineering and design at Howard Hanson Dam and the initiation of
construction on the Additional Water Storage Project.
Your project share based on one-ninth portion of the project will be $33,333 for the
Second Supply Project permitting, engineering-and $466,667 for the Howard Hanson
Dam Additional Water Storage Project.
Tacoma has also budgeted the completion of headworks improvements including the
raising of the diversion dam, and construction of the trap and haul facility to support tna
Second Supply Project during 2002. The project partner shares for this work are
calculated using Exhibit "O" to the Second Supply Project agreements. The share of this
S15,640,000 project for your utility would be $1,236,296. It is anticipated that by 2002,
Tacoma will have received approval of its Habitat Conservation Plan and governing
bodies for each of the partner utilities will have approved construction of the Second
Supply Project.
It is requested that you confirm your support of the proposed expenditures and your
willingness to provide the funding requested.
Sincerely,
o'er
John C. Kirner
i Deputy Water Superintendent
I
i
Kent City Council Meeting
!" Date April 17 , 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: POLICE RECORDS AND JAIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS -
AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign contracts with
Cit Com, Inc . for the purchase of consulting services to assist
in the selection of a new police records management system and
jail management system, subject to City Attorney approval of
contract documents.
The City is replacing its police records management and jail
management system primarily due to limited product support by
the vendor. As a result of a RFP process for consulting
services, the Police and IT departments have selected Cit Com,
Inc. to assist the City in this effort . The scope of their
engagement is to assist the City to perform a requirements
analysis for a new police records management and jail
management system, prepare a RFP, and evaluate and select a
vendor.
3 . EXHIBITS: Information packet prepared for the Operations
Committee 4/3/01 meeting
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $91, 330
SOURCE OF FUNDS : 1998 Technology Plan
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6E
Kent City Council Meeting
Date
Category Consent Calendar
KENT
W.f...GTO.
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
DATE: April 3, 2001
TO: Council Operations Committee
FROM: Stan Waldrop, I.T. Systems Division Manager flAl
Pam Gettman,I.T. Senior Systems Analyst,_
RE: Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
BACKGROUND
The City has used a system called "CDS" for police records management and jail management
since 1988-1989. The CDS implementation has been a success; however, several factors have
prompted efforts to replace it. These include discontinued support for the jail management
system, uncertain support of the records management system, and limited options in terms of
functionality and expandability. Monies for the consulting services to assist the City in selecting
new systems were included in the 1998 Technology Plan. Funds for the actual system
replacements will be included as part of the next Technology Plan.
PREPARATION WORK
A project management team was created to guide and oversee these system replacements from
inception through implementation. This team is led by the Police Chief as the project sponsor,
and includes a "Police Governance Committee" comprised of the Deputy Chief of Police, Police
Captains, and IT Systems Division Manager. Reporting to this team is a representative from the
IT Systems Group who serves as the project manager.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The scope of this project is limited to the selection of a new police records management system
and jail management system.
Page 1 of 4
Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
SELECTION PROCESS
In January 2001, we issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a qualified vendor to provide
consulting services to assist the City in selecting a new records management system and jail
management system (hereinafter "RMS") for the City's Police Department and Corrections
Facility. The scope of the RFP was to select a vendor to guide and assist in the requirements
analysis,RFP preparation for a RMS, and RMS vendor evaluation and selection.
The evaluation process was a collaborative effort among the project management team and
focused on the following aspects:
• Vendor's RFP Response (e.g., project approach, consulting team qualifications, references)
• Work Samples
• Cost
The City received seven RFP responses that were reviewed by the project management team
members from Information Technology. Three finalists were selected to make formal
presentations and to submit a work sample.
The Police Governance Committee attended the presentations and provided feedback on each
vendor. The IT project management team reviewed the work samples and presented feedback to
the Police Governance Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the vendor presentations, work sample reviews and cost comparisons, Cit Com,
Inc. was identified as the vendor of choice to assist the City in selecting the new police records
management and jail management systems.
The primary consultant who is proposed for this engagement has six years of consulting
experience in the public safety arena, and has also served as a police dispatcher and police
officer. The cost of the Cit Com, Inc. proposal is approximately 583,000 dollars (including travel
expenses).
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The anticipated project outcomes include:
• Identifying the immediate and long term needs of RMS users
• Developing project ownership and support from RMS users
• Understanding current best practices and RMS trends in law enforcement and corrections, and
how to apply them to the City's environment
Page 2 of 4
Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
EXPECTED OUTCOMES (CONTINUED)
• Understanding the latest developments and future direction in the RMS arena including mobile
computing
• Selecting a new RMS that best satisfies user requirements, offers long-term viability and is
suited to the City's current infrastructure
• Preparing for the implementation of the new RMS
• Completing the project on-schedule and within budget.
PROJECT TIMELINES
The estimated timelines for the project are as follows:
Phase Description Start Finish
1 Create RMS Selection Project Plan 2'4 Quarter 2001 2 na Quarter 2001
2 Perform Requirements Analysis 2 nd Quarter 2001 3 rd Quarter 2001
3 Create & Distribute RFP 3 uarter 2001 4Quarter 2001
4 Evaluate Proposals &Prepare Recommendation 4Quarter 2001 1st Quarter 2002
BUDGET IMPACT AND SUMMARY
The budget impact and summary are shown below:
Project Component Budget
Consultant Fees $74,800
Travel and Document Preparation Expenses 8,228
Contingency 10% 8,302
Project Budget $91,330
Project Phases Budget
Phase 1 —2"d Quarter 2001 $ 9,200
Phase 2 —2" Quarter 2001 to YdQuarter 2001 18,800
Phase 3 —3 rd uarter 2001 to 4 Quarter2001 18,000
Phase 4—4 Quarter 2001 to 1'Quarter 2002 28,800
Travel and Document Preparation Expenses 8,228
Contingency 10%) 8,302
Project Bud et $919330
r— The budget source will be the Technology Plan.
Page 3 of 4
Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
ATTACHMENTS
,^1
• Exhibit A - Executive Overview: City of Kent Records Management System
Procurement Assistance RFP
• Exhibit B - Resume of Primary Consultant
MOTION
Move to authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with Cit Com, Inc. for the purchase of consulting
services to assist in the selection of a new police records management system and jail
management system, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents.
Page 4 of 4
Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
EXHIBIT A
Executive Overview:
City of Kent Records Management System Procurement Assistance RFP
The executive overview consists of select portions from the request for proposal. These include
the table of contents and Introduction segment that provides an overview of the background,
objectives and scope of work for this project.
r^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION;..............»..........................................................»...»...»............................................................I
1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................... I
1.1.1 City Information.................................................................................................................................................. 1 j
1.1.1 The Technology Plan...........................................................................................................................................2
1.1.3 City Police Department.......................................................................................................................................2
1.1.4 Current Police System.........................................................................................................................................3
1.1.5 Current Corrections System................................................................................................................................3
1.1.6 Police Technology Plan.......................................................................................................................................3
1.1.7 Project Team.......................................................................................................................................................4
1.2 OmmvEs...................................................................................................................................................................6
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................................................................................7
1.3.1 Phase 1—RMS Selection Project Plan................................................................................................................8
1.3.2 Phase 11—Requirements Definition.....................................................................................................................9
1.3.3 Phase III- RFP Creation and Distribution...................................................................................................... 10
1.3.4 Phase IV—Proposal Evaluation and Recommendation.................................................................................... 11
1.3.5 Items Not Included in RFP Scope...................................................................................................................... 11
2 PROCUREMENT PROCESS......................................................................................................................................12
2.1 PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE.......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 PROPOSAL DATE,TIME, LOCATION............................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CITY OF KENT............................................................................................................... 13
2.4 VENDOR CLARIFICATIONS AND QUESTIONS............................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Clarifications..................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Vendor Contact.................................................................................................................................................. 13
2.5 SUMMARY OF RFP PROCESS........................................................................................................................................ 13
2.5.1 RFP Changes or Amendments........................................................................................................................... 13
2.5.2 Vendor Submits Proposal.................................................................................................................................. 14
2.5.3 City Evaluates Proposals.................................................................................................................................. 14
2.5.4 City Announces Finalists................................................................................................................................... 14
2.5.5 Vendor Presentations........................................................................................................................................ 14
2.5.6 Final Vendor Selection...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.7 Progress Payment Schedule.............................................................................................................................. 15
2.5.8 Finalize Contract............................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.9 Contract Approval............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 PROPOSAL PROCESS..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.1 Reference Checks.............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.6.2 Costs Incurred by Vendors................................................................................................................................ 16
2.6.3 Right of Selection or Rejection of Proposals........................................................................................'............. 16
2.6.4 Incorporation of RFP and Proposal in the Final agreement............................................................................ 16
2.6.5 Errors in Proposals........................................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.6 Period of Validity of Proposals......................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.7 Proprietary Material......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.8 Proposal Confidentiality................................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.9 Proposal Disposition........................................................................................................................................ 17
3 VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS.........................................................................................................................................18
3.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT..................................................................................................................................................... 18
4 CONSULTING ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE..............................................................................................20
4.1 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................20
4.2 CONSULTING TEAM.....................................................................................................................................................21
4.3 CUSTOMER REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX A — VENDOR RESPONSE FORMS
APPENDIX B — TERMS AND CONDITIONS
APPENDIX C — TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT
City of gent, Washington AMS Procurement Assistance
1 INTRODUCTION
Thti , ity of Kent, hereinafter referred to as the "City", is seeking proposals for a qualified vendor to provide
consulting services on selecting a new Records Management System (RMS) for the City's Police Department
and Corrections Facility. The City defines RMS as:
An integrated software product suite that manages the record keeping functions of a law enforcement agency
such as incident reporting,field interviews, case management and crime analysis. In addition, this solution
records, manages and reports on information relating to inmate incarceration from the time an inmate is
booked until the inmate is released from the corrections facility.
This Request for Proposal's (RFP) scope is to select a vendor to guide and assist in the requirements analysis,
RFP preparation for a RMS, and RMS vendor evaluation and selection. The vendor shall not be affiliated with
any hardware or software vendor, manufacturer or distributor. This document details the information on which
the City will base its selection. The topics covered in this section include:
♦ Background
♦ Objectives
♦ Scope of Work
The information in this section is intended to provide a City overview and convey this project's priorities to the
vendor.
1.� Background
This subsection provides background information on the City. The vendor should use this information to gain a
sense of the City's size and scope of services provided to both internal departments and the citizens.
1.1.1 City Information
The City is the eighth largest city in Washington, with a population of 73,140 and a 28 square mile geographic
area. The City's population is projected to grow to 100,000 or beyond within the next few years.
The City has approximately 750 full-time employees. The number of temporary employees on the payroll
varies from 100 to 350. The City is a full service city and includes the following departments:
• Administration/ • Employee Services • Information • Parks, Recreation
Office of the Mayor Technology and Community
Services
• City Clerk • Finance Services • Legal • Police
• Community • Fire & Life Safety • Municipal Court • Public Works
Development
Introduction I
City of gent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.1.1 City Information (continued)
The City operates over 25 facilities including:
♦ City Hall
♦ Centennial Center
♦ Several Parks and Recreation Facilities
♦ Public Works Maintenance Facilities
♦ 6 Police Department Facilities
♦ Corrections Facility
♦ Municipal Court
♦ 8 Fire Department Facilities.
1.1.2 The Technology Plan
In April 1998, the City Council approved a three-year, $12.8 million Technology Plan. The Technology Plan's
goal was to provide the resources necessary to address the City's technology infrastructure and information
system needs. In the first two years of this technical renaissance, the City's technology accomplishments
include:
♦ Network Infrastructure Replacement
♦ Desktop Standardization
♦ Increased Support Staff
♦ Telephone System Replacement
♦ Permitting System Replacement
♦ Parks and Recreation System Replacement
♦ Email System Implementation
♦ Web Presence
In addition to maintaining and enhancing the systems listed above, the City has a number of other projects
currently underway. The City's most encompassing project is the implementation of an Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) application. The City selected the J.D. Edward's OneWorld product to support the City's
financial and human resources management needs. Another key project is the implementation of an Enterprise
Document Management System (EDMS). The City is in the final stages of selecting an EDMS vendor.
1.1.3 City Police Department
The Police Department has 127 sworn officers and 60 civilian personnel who are organized into four units:
Administration, Corrections, Patrol, and Support Services. The Corrections Facility is a "full service"jail with
129 beds. Support Services is comprised of: Records, Training / Personnel, Investigations and Public
Education/ Internal Affairs, and Budget/Purchasing.
Introduction 2
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.1.4 Current Police System
Th'-"zity uses a RMS called"Public Safety Software" from the West Covina Service Group that was installed in
198.. and is commonly referred to as "CDS". CDS is a Cobol-based system on a BP3000 computer with
approximately 6.9 GB of data. Users access CDS from their PCs using terminal emulation software'. There are
approximately 190 users among the Police, Kent Fire & Life Safety, Legal, and Information Technology
departments.
RMS-related work within the City includes:
♦ Police: case reports, field investigations, evidence tracking, crime analysis, inquiries 2, and management
reporting
♦ Kent Fire& Life Safety: arson investigations
♦ Legal: preparing for prosecution, fielding public inquiries, accessing external agencies
♦ Information Technology: system administration
1.1.5 Current Corrections System
The Kent Corrections Facility uses a module of the West Covina Service Group's software called "Jail
Management System" or "7MIS". JMIS was installed in 1989 and has approximately 35 users. This module is
no longer supported by the vendor and hence will be the first module of the new RMS to be implemented.
JMIS-related work within the City includes:
Corrections: booking, sentencing, release, inquiries, and reporting
♦ Police: inquiries
♦ Municipal Court: inquiries
♦ Information Technology: system administration
1.1.6 Police Technology Plan
Representatives from the Police, Corrections, Legal, and Information Technology departments convened during
the second quarter of 2000 to identify high-level objectives and requirements for the new RMS. This
information is summarized in the Police Technology Plan and will serve as the basis for the RMS replacement
project.
` Dec VT 100 emulation via Reflections for HP version 6.0
2 i,..iudes inquires to external databases such as ACCESS maintained by the Washington State Crime Information Center(WACIC).
Introduction 3
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.1.7 Project Team
The City envisions a project team that may be organized as follows:
Role Responsibilities Participants)
Project Sponsor ♦ Ultimate decision-maker and tie- Chief Ed Crawford
breaker
♦ Provide project oversight and guidance
♦ Determine project priorities
♦ Resolve management issues
♦ Review/approve project deliverables
Governance ♦ Allocate resources Deputy Chief Chuck Miller
Committee ♦ Review and approve project Captain Dave Everett
deliverables Captain Jim Miller
♦ Provide knowledge and Captain Mike Painter
recommendations
Stan Waldrop
♦ Remove project barriers
♦ Update Project Sponsor
Project ♦ Manage project(e.g., schedule) Pam Gettman
Manager ♦ Provide overall project direction
♦ Direct/lead team members toward
project objectives
♦ Review and approve project
deliverables
♦ Handle problem resolution
♦ Update Governance Committee
Introduction 4
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.1.7 Project Team (continued)
Role Responsibilities Participants)
Project ♦ Provide project methodology and RMS Vendor
Consultants procedures
♦ Assist with project management
responsibilities
♦ Guide project analysts in completing
deliverables
♦ Q/A project deliverables
♦ Complete selected project deliverables
♦ Relay best practices
Project Analysts ♦ Complete selected project deliverables One representative (to be
including needs assessment, RFP identified) from each area
response evaluation and vendor that uses RMS including:
selection Corrections, Patrol, Records,
♦ Understand the user needs and business Training/Personnel,
processes of their area Investigations, Public
Education/Internal Affairs,
♦ Act as consumer advocate in Budget/Purchasing, Fire &
representing their area Life Safety, Legal,
♦ Update their area Municipal Court, At Large.
Subject Matter Lend expertise and guidance as needed Joe Lorenz (Technical
Experts Services)
Donno Cole (Valley
Communications Center)
Plus others to be identified
Introduction S
City of gent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.2 Objectives
The project associated with this RFP has several objectives that are outlined below. The successful vendor must
demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that they can best assist the City in meeting these objectives:
♦ Establishing a relationship with consulting vendor that has a proven track record in RMS selection for law
enforcement and corrections
♦ Identifying the immediate and long term needs of RMS users
♦ Developing project ownership and support from RMS users
♦ Understanding current best practices and RMS trends in law enforcement and corrections, and how to apply
them to the City's environment
♦ Understanding the latest developments and future direction in the RMS arena including mobile computing
♦ Selecting a new RMS that best satisfies user requirements, offers long-term viability and is suited to the
City's current infrastructure
♦ Preparing for the implementation of the new RMS
♦ Completing the project on-schedule and within budget.
Introduction 6
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
13 Scope of Work
Thi('�bsection details the deliverables and services the City expects to receive through this RFP. The project is
divided into four phases:
Phase Milestone(s)/Deliverable(s) Target Completion Dates
I. RMS Selection Project Plan ♦ Management approved Project Plan ♦ June 8, 2001
II. Requirements Definition ♦ Management approved ♦ July 30, 2001
consolidated requirements
♦ Management approved evaluation
criteria and model
III. RFP Creation& Distribution ♦ Management approved RFP and
vendor list
♦ RFP distribution • August 31, 2001
♦ Log of vendor questions and
responses
♦ Bidder's Conference
IV. Proposal Evaluation & ♦ Completed preliminary evaluation
Recommendation matrix
♦ Top 3 vendor list ♦ October 31, 2001
♦ Completed final evaluation matrix
(with reference checks and product
demonstrations)
♦ Approved management ♦ December 7, 2001
recommendation and presentation
♦ Management approved
Implementation Blueprint.
The final outcome from this project is to have a project Blueprint for implementing the new Police and Jail
Records Management System, and selected vendor(s) who are ready to begin implementation.
Introduction 7
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.3.1 Phase I—RMS Selection Project Plan
Prepare a plan that describes how the vendor will complete project phases 2 — 4. Essential elements will
include:
♦ Objectives (specific, measurable, attainable, and relevant)
♦ Scope Statement(project boundaries plus including items that are not addressed)
♦ Approach (including methodologies and procedures for needs assessment and RFP evaluation, detailed
work plan for next phase, project team, their roles and responsibilities)
♦ Schedule and Milestones (including tasks, deliverables, resources, duration, begin/end dates)
♦ Budget (per phase)
♦ Communication Plan (status reporting, problem escalation, quality assurance checkpoints and approvals)
♦ Assumptions/Constraints
♦ Change Management Plan
Obtain management approval for project plan.
Introduction 8
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
13.2 Phase II—Requirements Definition
Vdt__j the high-level system objectives and requirements as outlined in the Police Technology Plan. Link the
system objectives to business/service objectives that have measurable performance criteria. Use the
requirements as the baseline for detailed requirements definition. Perform a needs analysis and gather detailed
system requirements for all areas that use "CDS". Also, determine what information (in terms of inputs and
outputs) each area needs to perform their business function. Requirements should include:
♦ Internal and external system interfaces (e.g., CAD)
♦ Data Transfer
♦ Electronic forms
♦ Standard and ad hoc queries
♦ Reporting(internal and external)
♦ Document management
♦ Security
♦ Policy/Procedures
♦ Back-up
♦ Administration
Contingency planning/ Disaster recovery
Conversion (e.g., data, forms)
♦ Ergonomics
♦ Training
♦ Architecture/ Performance
♦ Support/ Maintenance
♦ Network Infrastructure
♦ Other Constraints and Assumptions
Consolidate requirements and obtain management approval. Establish evaluation criteria, then use criteria to
create a RFP / vendor evaluation model for approved requirements. Obtain management approval for the
evaluation model.
Introduction 9
City of Ken4 Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
1.3.3 Phase III- RFP Creation and Distribution
Prepare RFP that includes sections for:
♦ Consolidated Requirements (deliverable from Phase II—Requirements Definition)
♦ Implementation Approach and Schedule
♦ Hardware and Software Requirements
♦ Network Integration
♦ Customization
♦ Consulting
♦ Conversion
♦ Testing and Validation
♦ Training
♦ Documentation
♦ Support and Maintenance
♦ Warranty
♦ Plus standard City contract verbiage.
Obtain management approval of the RFP. Identify vendors and distribute the RFP. Track vendor questions and
formulate responses. Organize and conduct a formal Bidder's Conference.
Introduction 10
City of Ken; Washington RMS Procurement Assistance
13.4 Phase IV—Proposal Evaluation and Recommendation
Tht, -,nal project phase deals with RPF responses and vendor selection which includes:
♦ Receiving and tracking RFP responses
♦ Managing vendor follow-up
♦ Evaluating proposals and completing preliminary evaluation model
♦ Identifying top 3 vendors
♦ Coordinating vendor demonstrations
♦ Checking customer references
♦ Completing evaluation model with reference checks and vendor demonstration results
♦ Selecting final vendor
♦ Preparing recommendation to management including cost summary
♦ Preparing the Implementation Blueprint that includes:
An overall implementation plan containing all project plan elements outlined in Section 1.3.1
♦ Detailed task plan and schedule for phase 1 of the implementation
♦ Sections addressing the applicable categories outlined in Section 1.3.3
♦ Preparing management presentation.
1.3.5 Items Not Included in RFP Scope
The wireless network design and implementation of the new RMS are not within the scope of this effort.
Introduction 11
Police Records Management and Jail Management Systems
Selection Assistance Recommendation
EXHIBIT B
Resume of Primary Consultant
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement
February 14, 2001
William RomesbuN
CLIENT QUOTE
•Na afycddBX A*i4g&kCrtysuf'tba*a a ip w unt''aikrknPnn!2;
hedsysmmd agw tint fcnid awcrv1hud cf tletuo»ilk'md9xpwaeeret."
- Denise Ovrom,Assistant City Manager,Beverly Hills
■ Six years of full time public saferytedmdogyproject planning,
nwageneru,procu ement and implementation assistance
• Tadve years of enegerxy ommmnications aq)meice
• Proven leadership capabilities in the area of public safety technology
• Master of Arts m Public Adn=Lg on
• Court-recognized egert in law enforcement technology
Is% Current Cit Com,Inc. Las Vegas,NV
Vice President,Govesrnnenu Technology Consulting
■ Manage public safety technology programs to ensure
implementation and prescribed activities are carried out in
accordance with specific objectives.
• Routinely plan and develop methods and procedures for
successfully implementing public safety technology (including
RFP preparation,analysis,contract negotiations).
• Continuous exposure to the latest CAD, RMS and wireless
technology.
1997- 1998 RCC Consultants,Inc. Woodbridge,MA
Director,Public Safety
■ Managed multiple concurrent public safety projects.
■ Directed and coordinated engagement activities and personnel.
• Controlled expenditures in accordance with budget allocations.
1995- 1997 The Wamer Group Woodland Hills,CA
Managing Cowuhant
■ Served multiple police and fire agencies across the United
States in information technology design,procurement and
implementation.
1989- 1995 City of Orange Orange,CA
Police Officer
1986- 1989 City of Brea Brea,CA
Police and Fire Dispatcher
City of Kent, Washington RMS Procurement
February 14, 2001
PMI Ca*ixtiar3 L ad 2—FLA "i
1992- 1994 California State University Fullerton,CA
MA,PldicA4?3 z rxoari
1994 Chapman University Orange,CA
L ambship Graim
1989 Rancho Santiago College Cypress,CA
PdimAaxbWGrattxg utth Ham
Project Management Software
• Microsoft Project 2000
i
Office Automation
Microsoft Office 2000 Suite
ComQutermded Dispatch/Records Management
Software
■ PRC Cobol CAD (operational)
• PRC Altarus CAD (operational)
■ Tiburon COBOL CAD (operational)
■ Tiburon CAD/2000(operational)
College Coursewo&
• LAN/WAN Network Design
■ Wireless Connectivity
• Dbase Structure
Kent City Council Meeting
!— Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS FACILITY ROOF BUDGET CHANGE - AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their April 3, 2001 meeting, approval of a budget
change for re-roofing of the Corrections facility for approxi-
mately $425, 000 using existing funds and a transfer of $225, 000
from the Police Land Acquisition Account . The one-ply roof is
approximately 15 years old and will be replaced with a three-
ply roof after the HVAC is installed.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
•
4400
KENT
/ WASMIu6TON
DATE: March 28,2001
FINANCE
May Miller TO: Mayor White and City Councilmembers
Director
Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller \X\4\�
Fax: 253-856-6255
220 Fourth Ave. S. SUBJECT: Re-roofing the Corrections Facility
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Authorization is requested to approve replacement of the roof at the Corrections
facility.
The Corrections facility remodel is underway using bond money. The original
project only anticipated replacing a portion of the roof around the HVAC
replacement. During the bid process and upon inspection it has been
recommended to replace the entire roof, not just a portion. The roof is 15 years old
with a useful life of approximatelyl5-20 years. The cost estimate for the roof
replacement is$425,000 and can be covered by utilizing$200,000 already
budgeted in the Corrections Project and roof repair project. The balance of
$225,000 can be covered by transferring$225,000 bond funds from the Police
Land Acquisition Account. This is an authorized Public Safety use, per the bond
ordinance.
The Police Headquarters Land Acquisition Bond Funds of$2,100,000 have used
approximately$415,000 through December 31, 2000 with a balance of$1,685,000.
After the transfer of$225,000 the balance will be $1,460,000 in the land
acquisition account. The exact site and cost of the land is undetermined at this
time and may end up costing up to$4,000,000 depending on the site. The budget
for the additional money will need to be adjusted once the site and costs are known
and may be covered in a future bond issue.
It makes sense to complete the entire re-roof at this time and I recommend
approval.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize re-roofing the Corrections facility for approximately$425,000 using
existing funds and a transfer of$225,000 from the Police Land Acquisition
Account.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17 , 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: POLICE CORP PROGRAM FUNDS - ACCEPT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of Police Corp Program Funds
and establishment of budget documents, as required, to use
funds for assistance in Civil Service testing.
Upon acceptance of Police Corp Program. Funds and establishment
of budget documents, the funds shall be committed to assist
Employee Services in hiring part time help to aid in Civil
Service testing. Funds have been received in the amount of
$10, 000 . 00
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Police Department, Mary Ann Kern, 3/20/01
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6G
KENT
WHIM Imorom Kent Police Department,,..( . .
To: Public Safety Committee via Chief E rawford
From: Mary Ann Kern, Admin Services Support Manager
Subject: Police Corp Program Funds
Date: March 20,2001
The Police Corps is a Federal Program designed to address violent crime by increasing the
number of officers with advanced education and training who serve on community patrol.
Tvpically, they serve in low-income, high-crime urban areas or isolated rural areas.
The program has three central components:
1. The Police Corps provides scholarships on a competitive basis to students who agree to
earn their bachelor's degrees, to complete approved Police Corps training, and then to serve
for four years on patrol, as assigned, with law enforcement agencies in areas of great need.
Undergraduates must attend college full time and may receive up to $7,500 per academic
year.
2. The Police Corps provides funds to states to develop and provide 16 to 24 weeks of rigorous
residential Police Corps training.
3. The Federal government provides local and state agencies that hire Police Corps officers
$10,000 a year for each of an officer's first four years of service. Police Corps officers have all
of the rights and responsibilities of other members of their law enforcement agencies.
The Kent Police Department is participating in this program through the Washington State
Criminal Justice Training Commission. We have filled one of our existing vacancies with an
officer hired under this program. This officer has just completed his first year and we have
now received $10,000.
The Chief through the Mayor's Office committed to Civil Service to use the funds received in
this program to assist Employee Services in hiring part time help to aid in Civil Service
Testing.
We are seeking council approval to establish a project for these funds and to expend the
revenue for this purpose.
Cc: Employee Services
\\PA\USR\POLICEUDMLY\MKERMUserdata\Word Documents\Poiice Corp Public Safety memo.doc 03/20/01 M.Kern
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17. 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: SCHUSTER SELF STORAGE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for Schuster
Self Storage submitted by Charles J. Gifford for continuous
operation and maintenance of 35 feet of watermain, 85 feet of
street improvements and 195 feet of storm sewers and release of
bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at
301 East Novak Lane.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6H
i
3 J
S 212TH ST S 208TH,
En
a
x
N 00 S 218TH T
a �
i
tO m 9 00
S 222ND ST
o cn
a `Y•
U r,
1O S 228TH ST
i
CA it CA
�
a N VA a
x L x
J S 234TH T 1 �1� 0000
OLE ST P J CT
�6 k
C ION
S ST
N
SMITH T a a H
I x
ZK R SRtit v a
o1 11 1 lei I °f x
x
to
3 v
S 252ND ST
WA T S
ui
S. 259TH ST
-1
j
SCHUSTER SELF STORAGE
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 118TH AVENUE SEWER EXTENSION - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept as complete the 118th Avenue Sewer Extension
contract and release of retainage to M. McPhee Co. upon
standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The
original contract amount was $58, 813 .42 . The final construction
cost was $52, 688 .30 .
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17 . 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: VAN REPLACEMENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee at their April 2 , 2001 meeting, approval of a budget
for the replacement of a 1998 cargo van that was stolen on
March 13, 2001 . The van is covered by the City' s Equipment
Rental Self-Insurance and the $26, 103 will be budgeted from the
Fund Balance of Equipment Rental .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6J
KE •NT
W A S N I N O T O N
Imo\
DATE: April 10,2001
FINANCE
May Miller TO: Mayor White and City Council Members
Director
Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller
Fax:253-856-6255
220 Fourth Ave.S. SUBJECT: Van Replacement Budget Adjustment
Kent,WA 98032-5895
As recommended by the Public Works Committee at their April 2, 2001 meeting,
authorization is requested to budget for the replacement of a 1998 cargo van that
was stolen on March 31,2001. This authorization is needed now so that we can
take advantage of the annual state contract allowing us to save money through the
state bulk purchasing ability. The van is covered by the city's Equipment Rental
Self-Insurance and the$26,103 will be budgeted from the Fund Balance of
Equipment Rental. I recommend approval.
PUBLIC WORKS
Don E. Wickstrom, Director
OPERATIONS DIVISION
Larry R- Blanchard. Manager
•
KEN T Phone:253-856-5656
w.s..,„es t e r Fax: 253-856-6600
Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent,WA 96032-5895
Location Address: 5821 South 240th
Date: March 26, 2001
To: May Miller, Finance Director
From: Alice I. Conrad, Fleet Superintendent
Through: Larry Blanchard, Operations Manager 428 0 3-4?-vr
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Directo&
Mike Martin,Deputy City Administrator
Subject: Replace Stolen Van—Budget Adjustment Request
The 1998 Chevrolet Cargo Van (Vehicle 95406), stolen on March 130', must be replaced as soon
as possible in order to take advantage of the state contract purchase savings. The early
replacement of this vehicle requires review and approval by the City Council as an amendment
to the Fleet Services 2001 Budget. An additional S26,102.54 should be added to the line item
total expenditures in 6400 OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAY 510 5548 48E. The added amount will
cover the purchase of the vehicle as well as the set up equipment, licensing, etc. The required
Capital Outlay form is attached with this memo for your convenience and signature.
Please feel free to call me at 5680 if you have questions. Thank you.
Ref P:fleet2001 Budsei ArU2001 Budgei adf far Sohn van dac
Kent City Council Meeting
r Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: YEAR 2001 PARKS GRANT APPLICATIONS - AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Parks Department
to take each individual grant application resolution directly
to the Council Consent Calendar, as recommended by the Parks
Committee.
The granting agencies typically require adoption of a resolu-
tion and sometimes the timing can be limited. Accordingly,
staff is requesting authorization to submit grant application
resolutions directly to Council to shorten the time-frame to
obtain Council approval .
3 . EXHIBITS: Potential grant applications for Year 2001, summary
of grants received in 2000 and grant application resolutions
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6K
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Pq,E�NTIAL GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR YEAR 2001
1. Project Name:Clark Lake Park Native Tree Planting
• Grant: Dept.Of Natural Resources Urban Forestry
• Grant Amount: $10,000
• Total Project amount: $32,000
• Match Source: In-Kind
2. Project Name:Clark Lake Park Reforestation
• Grant:King County DNR
• Grant Amount:$10,000
• Total Project Amount: $32,000
• Match Source:In-Kind
3. Project Name:Clark Lake Park Acquisition
• Grant: King County Conservation Futures
• Grant Amount:(maximum)$150,000(estimate)
• Total Project Amount: $5,100,000
• Match Source: No Match Required
4. Project Name:Clark Lake Park Acquisition
• Grant: Miscellaneous
• Grant Amount: $tba
• Total Project Amount: $tba
■ Match Source:tba
5. Project Name: East Hill Skatepark Acquisition
• Grant: IAC Local Parks
• Grant Amount: $210,000
-/^total Project Amount: $420,000
,latch Source:Youth Teen Utility Tax
6. Project Name: E. Hill Youth Sports Complex Acquisition
• Grant: IAC Youths Sports Facility
• Grant Amount:$120,000
• Total Project Amount: $240,000
• Match Source:CIP Grant Matching
7. Project Name:Turnkey Park Acquisition
• Grant: IAC Local Parks
• Grant Amount: $90,000
■ Total Project Amount:$180.000
• Match Source: 2002 Land Acquisition
8. Project Name: Neely House Renovation (flooring)
• Grant: King County Landmarks
• Grant Amount: $20,000
• Total Project Amount: $20,000
• Match Source: No Match Required
9. Project Name: Commons Play Equipment
■ Grant: Community Development Block Grant
• Grant Amount: $75,000
• Total Project Amount: $75,000
• Match Source: No Match Required
Summary of 2000 Grants (Received)
Parks Planning & Development
Agency Name Project Requested
Springwood Park Grinding Rail $3,000.00
Kent Police, Federal Grant Campus Park $4,000.00
DNR Urban Forestry Canterbury Park $170,000.00
IAC Local Parks EHYS #2 $50,000.00
KC Youth Sports Facility Service Club Ballfields, Phase 1 $300,000.00
IAC Local Parks Neely House $38,227.00
KC Landmarks Clark Lake Acquisition $500,000.00
IAC Local Parks/Local Parks Clark Lake Acquisition
KC Conservation Futures Lake Fenwick Boating
IAC Local Parks Green River Fishing Access $300,000.00
IAC Water Access Green River Fishing Access
Coastal Zone Mgt. (Ecology) Green River Fishing Access
DNR Aquatic Lands Old Fishing Hole
Trout Unlimited Clark Lake Park $50,000.00
KC DNR Water Works Clark Lake Park $10,000.00
KC Urban Reforestation KMP Fields 2 & 3 $24,304.00
YAF Maintenance
Total $1,449,531.00
CITY OF KENT
r- RESOLUTION #
A resolution authorizing application(s)for funding assistance for Washington Wildlife and
Recreation Program project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
as provided in Chapter 43.98A RCW.
WHEREAS, City of Kent has approved a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for the
area that includes the Service Club Ballfield Acquisition;
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program,
state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land
and facilities for local public bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire the Service
Club Ballfield Expansion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Kent of Washington,
1. That the Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services be authorized to make
formal application to IAC for funding assistance.
2. That any fund assistance received be used for the acquisition of Service Club
Ballfield property.
3. That City of Kent anticipates its share of project funding will be derived from Capital
Improvement Program funds.
4. City of Kent acknowledges that they must support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
5. City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC ^�
financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat
conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise
provided and agreed to be City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency.
6. That this resolution becomes part of a formal application to IAC.
7. That City of Kent provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this
application.
Adopted by the City of Kent of 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 at
its regular meeting held
Signed and approved by the Mayor of City of Kent: (date)
Signed:
Jim White, Mayor
Attest:
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
CITY OF KENT
RESOLUTION #
A resolution authorizing application(s)for funding assistance for Washington Wildlife
and Recreation Program project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(IAC) as provided in Chapter 43.98A RCW.
WHEREAS, City of Kent has approved a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for
the area that includes East Hill Extreme Park Acquisition;
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program,
state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of
land and facilities for local public bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire an East
Hill Skate Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Kent of Washington,
1. That the Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services be authorized to make
formal application to IAC for funding assistance.
2. That any fund assistance received be used for the acquisition of East Hill Skate Park
property.
3. That City of Kent anticipates its share of project funding will be derived from Capital
Improvement Program funds.
4. City of Kent acknowledges that they must support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
5. City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC ^�
financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat
conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise
provided and agreed to be City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency.
6. That this resolution becomes part of a formal application to IAC.
7. That City of Kent provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this
application.
Adopted by the City of Kent of 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 at
its regular meeting held
Signed and approved by the Mayor of City of Kent: (date)
r'1
Signed:
Jim White, Mayor
Attest:
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
CITY OF KENT
�.-. RESOLUTION #
A resolution authorizing application(s)for funding assistance for Washington Wildlife
and Recreation Program project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(IAC) as provided in Chapter 43.98A RCW.
WHEREAS, City of Kent has approved a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for
the area that includes East Hill Youth Sports Complex Acquisition;
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program,
state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of
land and facilities for local public bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire additional
property south of East Hill Youth Sports Complex;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Kent of Washington,
1. That the Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services be authorized to make
formal application to IAC for funding assistance.
2. That any fund assistance received be used for the acquisition of property for the
East Hill Youth Sports Complex property.
3. That City of Kent anticipates its share of project funding will be derived from Capital
Improvement Program funds.
4. City of Kent acknowledges that they must support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
5. City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC r"'�
financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat
conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise
provided and agreed to be City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency.
6. That this resolution becomes part of a formal application to IAC.
7. That City of Kent provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this
application.
Adopted by the City of Kent of 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 at
its regular meeting held
Signed and approved by the Mayor of City of Kent: (date)
^1
Signed:
Jim White, Mayor
Attest:
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
CITY OF KENT
RESOLUTION #
A resolution authorizing application(s) for funding assistance for Washington Wildlife
and Recreation Program project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(IAC) as provided in Chapter 43.98A RCW.
WHEREAS, City of Kent has approved a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for
the area that includes Turnkey Park Acquisition;
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program,
state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of
land and facilities for local public bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire Turnkey
.,Park Expansion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Kent of Washington,
1. That the Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services be authorized to make
formal application to IAC for funding assistance.
2. That any fund assistance received be used for the acquisition of Turnkey Park
Expansion.
3. That City of Kent anticipates its share of project funding will be derived from Capital
Improvement Program funds.
4. City of Kent acknowledges that they must support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
5. City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC
financial aid must be placed in use as an Outdoor recreation facility or habitat
conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise
provided and agreed to be City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency.
6. That this resolution becomes part of a formal application to IAC.
7. That City of Kent provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this
application.
Adopted by the City of Kent of 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 at
its regular meeting held
Signed and approved by the Mayor of City of Kent: (date)
Signed:
Jim White, Mayor
Attest:
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: FIRE INSPECTION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR 2001 -
AUTHORIZE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the
interlocal agreement between the City of Kent and King County
for fire inspections for the year 2001 .
This agreement with King County covers the inspection of all
occupancies in Fire District #37, with the exception of single
family residences and miscellaneous structures.
The County will reimburse the City at the rate of $100 per hour
for travel, research time, and inspections performed on any
permit application within the City' s jurisdictional boundaries .
3 . EXHIBITS: Interlocal agreement
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Dept . and Public Safety Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
t
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6L
Attachment A
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
�- KING COUNTY
AND �pCITY OF KENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day by and between King County, a
home rule charter County in the State of Washington(hereinafter referred to as the"County") and
the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation(the"City").
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27,031 provides that on and after January 1, 1975, there shall be in
effect in all cities, towns, and counties of the state a state building code; and
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.031 provides that a portion of the aforementioned code shall
consist of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform "Fire Code Standards," published by the
International Fire Code Institute; and
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.040 authorizes counties to amend any component of the state
building code as it applies within its jurisdiction in all such respects as shall not be less then the
minimum performance standards and objectives enumerated in RCW 19.27.020; and
WHEREAS, K.C.C. 17.04.01013 provides that the term "fire marshal" as used in the
Uniform Fire Code shall mean fire marshal of the building services division of the King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services; and
WHEREAS, Section 103.2.1.2(1) of the King County Modifications to the Uniform Fire
Code, as adopted by K.C. Ordinance 12560 provided the King County Fire Marshal's Office shall
have responsibility for investigation, administration and inspection to promote compliance with
the fire prevention provisions of the code; and
WHEREAS, Section 103.2.1.2(3) of the King County Modifications to the Uniform Fire
Code, as adopted by K.C. Ordinance 12560 provides the King County Fire Marshal's may by
written contract, delegate to the chief of the fire districts and fire departments authority for
inspections and/or the enforcement of the fire prevention provisions of the code within their
respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the "City" desires to provide by agreement for effective inspection pursuant
to the Uniform Fire Code within the jurisdictional boundaries of King County Fire Protection
District 437 and effective administration and inspection of the Hazardous Materials
Inspections/Permit program; and
WHEREAS,this Agreement is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act., RCW 39.34.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises set forth herein, the
County and City hereby agree as follows:
1
1. COUNTY OBLIGATIONS
1.1. General. The County agrees to continue: to assume the enforcement powers
for the Uniform Fire Code as provided for by King County Code Title 23; to be responsible for
the issuance of all required permits or certificates; to collect all required permit fees; to reimburse
the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreemert for additional insurance premium charges
and for work performed as a result of the City's participation in the activities described in this
Agreement.
1.2. Ordinances. The County agrees that it shall notify the City upon the adoption
of any ordinance that affects or requires inspections to be made under the Uniform Fire Code or in
any way affects the duties of the City under the terms of this Agreement.
1.3 Forms. If the County specifies or requires any forms or written reports to be
used under the terms of this Agreement, the County agrees to provide such forms to the City at
the expense of the County.
1.4. Reimbursement For Work Performed. The County agrees to reimburse the
City at the rate of$100.00 per hour for travel and research time and inspections performed on any
permit applications within the District's jurisdictional boundaries pursuant to this Agreement;
provided that the County and City may from time to time mutually agree to modify this
reimbursement rate to more accurately reflect the actual cost of the City's providing services
authorized by this Agreement. Any modification to the reimbursement rate authorized herein
shall be made in writing. City billings for services rendered will be made quarterly, and the 1
County shall examine the billings and process them for payment promptly upon their receipt.
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS
2.1 Permit Inspection of Occupancies. The City agrees to perform Hazardous
Materials Permit inspections within its jurisdictional boundary on behalf of the County in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Uniform Fire Code of King County, and the
guidelines established by the King County Fire Marshal. In addition, the City agrees to inspect
occupancies, as defined in Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code, other than single family
dwellings and those occupancies classified as "U", on an annual basis. The City further agrees to
make one reinspection when required. Additional reinspections or other actions required for code
compliance may become the responsibility of the King,County Fire Marshal's Office.
2.2. Identification of Required Permits. As part of its routine annual maintenance
inspection process, the City agrees to evaluate occupancies within its jurisdiction to determine
whether circumstances exist that require permits under the Uniform Fire Code. When a
circumstance requiring a permit is identified, the City shall provide the occupant with a permit
application, verify which code provisions for the permitted use or material are being met, initiate
corrective action when needed, and notify the Fire Marshal's Office of any expired or missing
permits.
d
2
2.3 Notice Upon Inability to Inspect. If for any reason the City cannot meet any of
the above obligations, the City will promptly notify and seek additional assistance from the King
County Fire Marshal's Office.
3. LIABILITY INSURANCE
3.1 Insurance Coverage. The City agrees to carry at all times during the effective
period of this Agreement commercial general and automobile liability insurance coverage against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to properties which may arise from or in connection
with any activities under this Agreement. Insurance shall be at least in the amount of
$2,000,000.00 covering the County as additional insured for all obligations and activities of the
City and its employees, volunteers and agents related to the performance of this contract.
3.2 Reimbursement. During the term of this Agreement, the County agrees to
reimburse the City for any additional annual insurance premium attributable to the City's
performance of obligations under this contract, provided that the amount or reimbursement shall
not exceed $1,150.00 per year. The payment shall coincide with the City's normal insurance
billing date of July 1. In the event of early termination of the contract, the City shall pay to the
County an amount equal to any funds returned to the City by the insurance company as a result of
such termination of contract.
3.3 Municipal or State Agency Provisions. If the contractor is a Municipal
Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington and is self-insured for any of the above
insurance requirements, a certificate of self-insurance shall be attached hereto and be incorporated
.-. by reference and shall constitute compliance with this section.
4. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS
All records compiled by the City under the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute
records of the County and shall be made available to the County upon request.
All records and documents with respect to this Agreement shall be subject to mutual
inspection and review by both parties during the performance of this Agreement and for seven (7)
years after termination.
5. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND CONTROL
The County shall be responsible for the payment of all salaries, wages, other benefits, and
compensation to all county employees performing services under this Agreement. Further, the
County shall be solely responsible for control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline,
and all other aspects of performance of all county employees performing services under this
Agreement.
The District/ Department shall be responsible for the payment of all salaries, wages, other
benefits, and compensation to all City employees performing services under this Agreement.
Further, the City shall be solely responsible for control of personnel, standards of performance,
3
discipline and all other aspects of performance of all District employees performing services
under this Agreement.
In providing services under this Agreement, the City is an independent contractor, and
neither the City nor it officers, agents or employees are employees of the County for any purpose.
The City shall be responsible for all the federal and/or state tax, administration; industrial
insurance and Social Security liability that may result from the performance of and compensation
for these services and shall make no claim or career service or civil service rights which may
accrue to a County employee under state or local law.
6. NONDISCRIMINATION
In performing any obligations in this Agreement, neither the City nor any party
subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color,
sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or presence of any sensory,
mental, or physical handicap in the employment or applications for employment or in the
administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this Agreement.
The City shall comply with all applicable requirements of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
7. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY INTENDED
This Agreement is intended solely to provide assistance to the County and City and is not
intended to benefit any third party.
8. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement shall be administered by the King County Fire Marshal or his/her
designee, and the City Manager, or his/her designee.
9. DURATION
This Agreement shall take effect on the date fully executed below and shall automatically
renew for two consecutive annual terms thereafter unless otherwise terminated in accordance with
Section 10 of this Agreement.
-'1
4
10. TERMINATION
Either party may terminate this Agreement upon providing written notice to the other
,-,party a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the otherwise applicable annual renewal date. A
parry's decision to terminate this Agreement at any annual renewal term need not be for cause and
may appropriately factor, among other matters, the sufficiency of any reimbursement or insurance
rate modifications authorized pursuant to Sections 1.4 and 3.1 respectively. In addition, the
failure to comply with any of the provisions stated herein shall constitute material breach and
shall constitute cause for immediate termination. Any termination of this Agreement shall not
terminate those obligations of either party that matured prior to such termination.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
11.1 The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and
employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses,
and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or
omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing
obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action,
loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and
expense; provided that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of
governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the City and its
officers, agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their
respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same.
11.2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents and
employees or any of them from and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and
damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of
the City, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them in performing obligations pursuant to
this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is
brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided,
that the County retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or
public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County and of it officers,
agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and county and their respective
officers, agents and employees or any of them the City shall satisfy the same.
I U) The City and the County acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence
of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers, and the County, its agents, employees, and/or
officers, this section shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each
party, its agents, employees and/or officers.
5
12. AMENDMIENTS
This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto, and any oral
representation or understandings not incorporated herein excluded. Any modifications to this
Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed.
KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT
King County Executive
Dated Dated
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
King County '*+
Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
6
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17 , 2001
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT - CONFIRM
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment
of Donny A. White to serve as a member of the Kent Arts
Commission. Mr. White and his family are Kent residents and he
is employed by PEPSI Corporation. He is an instrumental
musician and performs at his church, where he is very active,
and for functions planned by family and friends . He is
currently working on producing his own CD.
Mr. White will replace Ellen Gimenez, who resigned. His term
will continue until 10/31/03 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6M
MEMORANDUM
TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE
DATE: APRIL 9, 2001
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION
I have appointed Donny A. White to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Mr. White
and his family are Kent residents and he is employed by PEPSI Corporation. He is an instrumental
musician and performs at his church, where he is very active, and for functions planned by family
and friends. He is currently working on producing a his own CD.
Mr. White will replace Ellen Gimenez, who resigned. His term will continue until 10/31/03.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
� �,�
� � �
a
��
�� ��C�
3� G
Kent Police Department
To: Leona Orr, Council President via Chief Crawford
Cc: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police
From: Mary Ann Kern,Admin Services Support Mgr.
Date: April 12, 2001
u
11
Subject: Request to Add to Agenda 4/17/01 -Mobile Data Computers, Radio
Modems, and Software Purchase Approval
The attached item went to Public Safety Committee on 4/10/01 as an add on item and it was
approved unanimously. We found that it did not ;et added to the council agenda for 4/17/01.
As this particular item is time sensitive, could you please add it to the agenda.
Thank you.
\\PA\USR\POLICE\ADMIMMKERMUserdata\Word Documents\Laptop Public Safety Memo.doc 04112101 Mkern
n
k r
4 � r
,,
City of Kent,Washington Kent City Council 5, ,
Date. Apri11I7;200
Category Consent Calendar
1_ SUBJECT: Mobile Data Computers,Radio Modems,aid Software Purchase Approval
1
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Police Department is continuing to replace their obsolete
Mobile Date Terminals in order to integrate with the new Valley Communications Dispatch
system. The Panasonic Toughbooks are being ordered at City of Tacoma contract prices. The
VRM 650 radio modems and the Tx Messenger software are necessary for operation and are
available for purchase through a sole source provider and at Portland Oregon contract prices.
The sole source provider for the radio modems and software is Motorola.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Safety Committee Memo, Motorola Quote, and Datec Pricing.
RECOMMENDED BY: Ed Crawford, Chief of.Police
Public Safety Committee (Vote 3/0 ) on 4/10/01
4. UNBUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT: No XY Yes
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $80,875.08
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
By approving this item the Police Department will be authorized to purchase Panasonic
Toughbooks for a total of $47,621.76 and the Mayor will be authorized to approve the sole
source purchase with Motorola for the VRM 650 radio modems and Tx Messenger software for
a total of$33,253.32. ° w
At,
� T
f
w
r
,�y �y y '}s t.! • '�S'yR•yj'��T.•, .:I •'qf. n�tro. .Wj•�' „d�
•�' II:1 DYeumwplE�ptopPubIIcS&fetyr Kew&doe 04nVOtNkom
`*•-�' KENT
was«i«otox
Kent Police Department
To: Public Safety Committee via Chief Crawford
From: Mary Ann Kern,Admin Services Support Mgr.
Subject: Police Department Approval Request for Ordering Additional Replacement MDC's and"Sole Source"
Radio Modems
Date: April 10,2001 i
The Police Department is requesting approval to place our neat order for replacement Mobile Data Computers(MDC).
Because of the dollar amount of the order and because part of the order requires"sole source",we need council approval
and Mayor White's signature. We have planned and budgeted for replacing our fleet's obsolete Mobile Data Terminals
(MDT)with laptops(MDC's). In 1999 we made our first significant order for 20 units,which was presented to Public Safety
and Council for approval. We are seeking approval to place another order for 10 units. Two of these units are for two new
traffic vehicles budgeted for year 2001 and the other eight units are for other old MDT's that are being replaced as part of
our initial replacement plan and existing CIP budget.
1. The MDC's we are ordering are the Panasonic Laptops from DATEC,which is a piggyback off of the City of Tacoma
contract G-014-99. The total of this order would be S47,621.76. (See attached spreadsheet for laptop specs.)
$9,52435 For two new traffic vehicles funded in#160-217-2270-6400.
S38,097.41 For eight old MDT replacements funded in#52K-C21-1720-6400
$47,621.76 Total Datec Order
2. The second part of this order is the radio modems necessary to operate the laptops on our current radio frequency. This
includes approval for"sole source"ordering necessary to comply with Valley Communications requirements. Our sole
source vendor is Motorola. We will be using the City of Portland contract B&Q7591. The total of this order is$33,25332.
(See attached spreadsheet for mobile radio modems.)
$6,650.66 For two new traffic vehicles funded in#160-217-2270-6400
$26.602.66 For eight old MDT replacements funded in#52K-C21-1720-6400
$33,25332 Total Motorola Order
The total request is for$80.875.08
Compatibility and Coordination : Valley Com and City of Kent Technology Staff Participated in this project to assure we
are ordering compatible equipment.
Warranty Information:
• The laptops have a 3-year Panasonic warranty.
• The mobile radio modems have a 1-year warranty.
• TX messenger software pricing includes a 3 year maintenance to assure that software change will be provided.
Recommended Action:
To authorize the Mayor to sign for approval to purchase the VRM 650 radio modems and Tx Messenger software under the
sole source provider provisions and to authorize the Police Department to purchase Panasonic Toughbooks under the City
of Tacoma contract.
\\PA\USR\POLICE\ADMIN\MKERMUserdata\Word Documents\1.aptop Public Safety Memo.doc 04/10/01 Mkern
rF
Kent Police Department
To: Brent McFall, Director of Operations
Cc: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police
From: Mary Ann Kern,Admin Services Support Mgr.
Date: April 10, 2001
t �
Subject: Laptop Purchase
This is a request for Mayor approval to again utilize Motorola as a sole source vendor without a
bid process.
We are continuing with our replacement plan and upgrading the obsolete Mobile Data
Terminals with Mobile Data Computers as our vehicles are replaced. We plan to replace 8
more MDT's from our existing CIP project and order 2 new units approved for 2 traffic units
approved in the 2001 budget.
Motorola has quoted us a price of$33,253.32 for 10 VRM650 mobile radio modems, the
MDC4800 Protocol necessary to operate, the TX Messenger software, and software
maintenance.
Valley Com and City of Kent Technology Staff participated in this project to assure we are
ordering compatible equipment.
I have attached a copy of the 1999 waiver approval for reference.
As per Kent City Code 3.70.080, the Police Department is seeking written waiver by the Mayor.
Please have Mayor signature below:
Thank you.
Jim White, Mayor Date
Cc: Mike Painter,Patrol Division Commander
Marty Mulholland,Information Services Director
Tom Brubaker,Deputy City Attorney
\\PA\USR\POLICEWDMU*AMKERN\Userdata\Word Documents\Laptop Public Safety Memo.doc 04/10101 Mkern
Memorandum
To: Brent McFall,Director of Operan ns
CC: Ed Crawford,Chief of Police
From: Mary Ann Kern,Admin Services Support Manager
Date. 04/29/99 Co
1
Re: Procurement Waiver for Purchase over$50,000—Updated Memo
Vehicle Radio Modems and Wave Soft;Links needed for Mobile Data Laptops Systems:
The Police Department has received a quote from Motorola for approximately$61,000 for the equipment needed to operate t
police vehicle MDT/Laptop equipment that has been funded with the Councilmanic Bonds. We are seeking approval to utiliz
Motoroia as a sole source without a bid process.
1. Ron Taylor at Valley Communications advised us of the following:
The wireless data system that Valley Communications operates and was originally owned by the City of Kent, utilizes a
proprietary data transfer protocol that is unique to the vendor that manufactured the system infrastructure. It is therefore
necessary.to purchase all mobile devices that will be used on the system (i.e. VRM units)from the system manufacturer. Oni\
Motorola devices are capable of communicating with the system. Other vendors cannot produce devices that infringe upon tht
proprietary nature of the data transfer. There are no other wireless data systems that Valley Communications is connected
with that will provide mobile data to the field. Ron can be reached at 253-859-4052,for further questions.
2. Kim Kaiser of Motorola advised us as follows:
Valley Com owns and operates a wireless mobile data system that uses a proprietary radio data protocol. This radio data
protocol allows users to transmit and receive data messages from their vehicles. Motorola is the only supplier of vehicular rad
modems that operate using this protocol.
The Vehicular Radio Modems(VRM)come with a one year parts and labor warranty. Motorola has two ongoing maintenanc
options following the warranty which are identical to the options we have with our Motorola mobile and portable radio
equipment. Following the VRM one year warranty,we can have the units serviced through an authorized Motorola warranty
center(like Ratelco)and only pay for the necessary service time and parts required to repair the VRM or we can purchase a
maintenance agreement that begins following the one year warranty.
3. Lt Steve Ohlde advises that the VRM model numbers have changed from a VRM600 to a newer model VRM650. The
VRM650 is specifically designed to operate with the purchase of the newer laptops,Panasonic CF-27 and it will also operate
with the older CF-25 laptops.
/^ UA MDT Laptop Sole Sourea.doc 04/2919911:47 AM M.Kem
April29, 1999
4. We are coordinating the laptops needed with Information Services support staff and using their recommendations on
specific Laptops that will be purchased in addition to this request. The equipment above that we are seeking approval is not
laptop,but the equipment required for laptops to function through the radio system and will be required itregardless of whi
laptop is selected.
As per Kent City Code 3.70.080,the Police Department is seeking written waiver by the Mayor.Please have Mayor
signature below:
Thank you.
'0
n .
- o - QZ
1iun White.Mayor Date
U:1MDT Laptop Sole Source Doc pg 2 04129M 11:47 AM M.Kern 2
T.
Addendum A : DATEC Price Quote
1
r^
U:\Userdata\Word Documeuts\Laptop Public Safety Memo.doc 04/10/01 Mkero
Kern, Mary Ann
From: Dave Almonte [dalmonte@datecinc.net]
Sent: Tuesday,April 10, 2001 1:12 PM
To: mkem@ci.kent.wa.us
pgettman@ci.kent.wa.us
ibject: Datec, Inc.
10
KmtKemGeMan4-01.
doe Mary Ann,
Thank you for your call this afternoon. Please see the attached letter you requested. If you need anything else please feel
free to call me direct. I will be on my mobile for the rest of the afternoon at 206-390-0885
Dave Almonte j
President
Datec, Inc.
dalmonte@datecinc.net
1
I CPgTOARL"
O R PA T E D
April 10, 2001
Mary Ann Kem
City of Kent
220 41h Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mary Ann,
The Datec team values the City of Kent as a premium customer and appreciates all the business over the
years. Please accept this letter as an agreement with the City of Kent to honor all terms and conditions as
stated in the Kent Fire letter of agreement to Datec, Inc. dated December 12, 2000. Datec, Inc.will offer the
same unit price for the Panasonic CF—27LB as indicated on the quote sent to Pam Gettman dated April 6,
2001.
Datec is a preferred TP3 reseller for Panasonic and an authorized service provider. Datec Inc. has been a
technology solution provider since 1975. Please see our web site at www.datecinc.net.
Please feel free to contact me direct with any questions. We value our relationship with the City of Kent.
Sincerely,
David Almonte
President
Datec, Inc.
206-575.1470
dalmonte0datecinc.net
Cc: Pam Gettman
r"
UAUserdata\Word Documents\Datec Itr KentKemGetUnan4-01.doc 04/10/01
EC
I N C O R P O R A T E D
2 2
p
c we Panasonic Laptop Hardware
QTY Unit Price Extended Price
Toughbook CF-27LB Ruggedized Laptop 10 $4,175.00 $41,750.00
Pill 500 MHz Processor City of Kent Rebate
♦ 64 MB RAM 10 $<300.00> <3000.00>
♦ 10 GB HHD
♦ 3.5 FDD
♦ 56k integrated modem
♦ 12.1 800x600 TFT Touchscreen
♦ LITHIUM Ion Battery
♦ Windows 98
♦ AC Adapter
♦ Y2K Compliant
♦ 3 year limited warranty
Internal Options: Unit Price Extended Price
♦ Windows 2000 OS 10 $99.00 $990.00
♦ Additional 128 MB RAM installed 10 $104.00 $1,040.00
♦ Backlit Keyboard 0 $299.00
Subtotal: $40,780.00
8.8%tax $3,588.64
Revised 4113101 Total: $44,368.64
Terms:The CF-27 is in stock and available 3.10 day delivery upon receipt of purchase order
number. Datec will include all shipping charges. Net 15 days of delivery. Applicable taxes not
included.
r^
UAUserdata\Word Documents\Datec ltr KentK=Gettman4-01.doc 04/13/01
�"TEC
I N C O R P Options: r
Microsoft Software: Unit Price
�y
♦ Office 2000 Professional single Full version $545.00
♦ Office 2000 Standard $449.00
Accessories:
Unit Price
♦ LI-DC: DC Adapter 1 $90.00
♦ CF-VCF271 FD Cable 1 $62.75
♦ CF-VCB-251A: Battery charger 1 $179.00
♦ CF-VZU04W: Li-on battery 1 $223.00
�. ♦ CF-AA1639AM: AC adapter 1 $99.00
♦ CF-VEB272: Desktop Port Rep 1 $279.00
♦ CFVCD271: CD ROM module 1 $359.00
Terms:The CF-27 is in stock and available 3-10 day delivery upon receipt of purchase order
number. Datec will include all shipping charges. Net 15 days of delivery. Applicable taxes not
\ included.
UAUserdata\Word DocumentsTatec ltr KentKemGettman4-01.doc 04/10101
Addendum B: Motorola Price Quote
U:1Userdata\Word Documeuts\Laptop Public Safety Memo.doc 04/10/01 Mkern
�.�_ a:4
MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS
3245 146th Place SE Suite #320
Bellevue Wa. 98007
(425) 646-0315
Fax. (425) 454-1519
� PREPARED FOR:
Kent Police Dept
220 4th Avenue South
Kent We. 98031
Attn. Mary Ann Kern
QTY MODEL# DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE
VRM 600 Series
10 F3454 VRM650 15 to 35 Watts 3 $2,400.00 $24,000.00
The VRM 650 is a data-only, mobile radio modem built on the
MCS 2000 radio platform.Voice communication is not supported.
The VRM 650 provides connectivity between a vehicle-mounted
data terminal and the system's host computer through the Private
DataTAC. Cable and Antenna included.
10 V681 MDC4800 Protocal $250.00 $2,500.00
10 SCA4020 TX Messenger $400.00 $4,000.00
10 SCA4022 S1W Maintenance 3 years ($60.00 peryear) $180.00 $1,800.00
SUB-TOTAL: $30,500.00
FREIGHT @ $12.00 $120.00
TAX: 8.60% $2,633.32
TOTAL: $33,253.32
re"
REMARKS: City of Portland contract pricing. B&Q7591
TERMS: Net 30 Days Items as Shipped. Freight included. Pricing is
good for 30 Days.
DELIVERY: Shipment in 45 working days from Order Acceptance at the
Factory.
WARRANTY:
1 year parts and labor Warranty on each unit, brought to
Day Wireless in Kent for shipment to Motorola Depot in
Rockford L. Approximately 4 day turn around depending on
severity of issue. Physical damage not included. A
Software Maintenance agreement
MOTOROLA INC. :
John J. Gallagher Jr.
.000
-11/a1oi Gem
2/8101 Page 1 Motorola radio modem quote#2.XLS
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category other Business
1 . SUBJECT: LID 351 BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended
adoption of a bond ordinance for improvements on the 277th
Street Corridor Project in the amount of $5, 367, 217 . A Moody' s
bond rating of A-1 has been obtained which will save property
owners approximately $100, 000 in interest cost . The Committee
also recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the bond
purchase contract with Bank of America.
3 . EXHIBITS: Various memos, letter, financial worksheet and
ordinance
r
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: rrI n ^
Councilmember movers, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Bond Ordinance No.3J�sokfor the issuance of
$5, 367, 217 plus issuance costs, and to authorize signing of
the bond purchase contract with Bank of America relating to
LID 351 .
DISCUSSION:I� L� "�� �' �:��
a�I V
ACTION: U V
rj Council Agenda
Item No. 7A
40
•
KENT
l W A S M I N O T O N
DATE: March 28, 2001
FINANCE
May Miller TO: Mayor White and City Cou_�ncillmee��mbers
Director \C\t
Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller
Fax:253-856-6255
SUBJECT: LID 351 Bond Ordinance&Purchase Contract
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Authorization is requested to approve the bond ordinance for LID 351. This is for
improvements on the 277`"Corridor Street Project for$5,367,217. This project
includes 365 parcels and is one of the larger LID projects of the city.
By working with David Trageser,the city" underwriter with Bank of America, we
were able to secure a Moody's rating of AI and will save the property owners
approximately$100,000 in interest costs. Usually LID bonds are not rated and
according to Mr.Trageser this A I rating would be the highest rated LID in
Washington state. The interest costs are expected to be under 6% including the
half percent administrative cost and will be paid over 15 years. Bonds are
expected to be marketed on April 12 pending final Council approval on April 17.
Authorization is also requested to have the Mayor sign the Bond Purchase Contract
with Bank of America.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize bond ordinance for LID 351 for$5,367,217 and authorize the Mayor to
sign the Bond Purchase Contract with Bank of America.
Hillman, John
From: Trageser, David [david.trageser@bankofamedca.comj
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 9:06 AM
To: jhillman@ci.kent.wa.us; mmiller@ci.kent.wa.us
Cc: Tietze, Shandra L
Subject: LID No. 351 Rating
Good Morning John and May:
I've got some great news! It looks like all of John's diligent effort in
supplying back-up information for LID No. 351 will not go unrewarded! On
Friday I spoke with Dari Barzel of Moody's. She has gone to her Rating
Committee and the preliminary result is an "A1" rating subject to Moody's
getting comfortable with the Opus NW parcels disclosure(see my previous
email this am). I will talk with Dari this morning to confirm the rating
and it's release.
After talking with Judith Cochrane on our municipal desk, we estimate the
value of the"Al" rating to be approximately 25 basis points in lower yield
versus the nonrated option. Assuming the estimated redemption of the Bonds
this would equate to interest savings of$100,000. The estimated rating fee
is $6,500 so you can see the rating is certainly worth obtaining and will
lower the property owner's assessment rate.
Please confirm that you agree with my recommendation to accept this rating
as we will print the POS tomorrow.
The"Al" rated LID No. 351 would be the highest rated LID in Washington
state-something to be proud of!
Dave T.
1
BankotAmerica.:
Banc of America Securities LLC �I�•
Dave Trageser
Vice President
NW Public Finance
April 17, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City of Kent Council Members
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
RE: City of Kent, Washington
Local Improvement District No. 351 Bonds
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Banc of America Securities LLC (the "Underwriter") offers to purchase from the City of Kent,
Washington (the "Issuer") all of the above-described Bonds (the "Bonds") on the terms and
based upon the covenants, representations and warranties set forth below and in Appendix A,
which is incorporated into this agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") by reference, and contains
a brief description of the Bonds, including principal amounts, maturity, interest rates, purchase
price, and the proposed date and place of delivery and payment (the "Closing"). Other provisions
of this Purchase Agreement are as follows:
r
1. Prior to the Closing, Issuer will approve a Preliminary Official Statement (hereinafter
defined) and will pass an ordinance authorizing the Bonds (the "Ordinance"), with such
changes as are requested by the Issuer, Underwriter and Bond Counsel. The Underwriter is
authorized by Issuer to use these documents and the information contained in them in
connection with the public offering of the Bonds and the final Official Statement in
connection with the sale and delivery of the Bonds.
2. Issuer, to the best of its knowledge, represents and covenants to the Underwriter that:
(a) It has, and will have at the Closing, the power and authority to enter into and perform
the Purchase Agreement, to pass the Ordinance and to deliver and sell the Bonds to the
Underwriter;
(b) This Purchase Agreement and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with, or constitute
or create a breach or default under, any existing law, regulation, order or agreement to
which Issuer is subject;
(c) Other than the Ordinance, no governmental approval or authorization is required in
connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter;
(d) The Preliminary Official Statement, defined hereinafter, with corrections, if any, noted
by the Issuer and its counsel, as of its date and (except as to matters corrected or added
in the final Official Statement) as of the Closing, is accurate and complete in all
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Kent
April 17, 2001
Page 2
material respects as of its date to the knowledge and belief of the officers and
employees of the Issuer, after due review;
(e) The Issuer hereby ratifies, approves and confirms the distribution of the Preliminary
Official Statement with respect to the Bonds, dated April _, 2001 (together with the
Appendices thereto, any documents incorporated therein by reference, and any
supplements or amendments thereto, the "Preliminary Official Statement"), in
connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds by the Underwriter prior to
the availability of the Official Statement and deems such Preliminary Official
Statement final as of its date for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1);
(f) The Issuer agrees to cooperate with the Underwriter to permit the Underwriter to
deliver or cause to be delivered, within seven business days after this Purchase
Agreement and in sufficient time to accompany any confirmation that requests payment
from any customer of the Underwriter, copies of a final Official Statement in sufficient
quantity to comply with paragraph (b)(4) of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 15c2-12 and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB");
(g) The Issuer will have made an undertaking to provide continuing disclosure to meet the
conditions of paragraph (d)(2) of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") as required under paragraph (b)(5) of
the Rule as provided in the Ordinance.
3. The Underwriter agrees to deliver three copies of the final Official Statement to each of the
nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories on the business day on
which the final Official Statement is available, and in any event no later than seven business
days after the date thereof.
4. The Underwriter shall have the right to cancel this Purchase Agreement by notifying the
Issuer of its election to do so if, after the execution of this Purchase Agreement and prior to
the Closing:
(a) A decision by a court of the United States or the United States Tax Court shall be
rendered, or a ruling or a regulation (final, temporary, or proposed) by or on behalf of
the Treasury Department of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service or other
governmental agency shall be issued and in the case of any such regulation, published
in the Federal Register, or legislation shall have been introduced in, enacted by or
favorably reported to either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United
States with respect to federal taxation upon interest received on bonds of the type and
character of any of the Bonds which, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter,
materially adversely affects the marketability of the Bonds or their sale by the
Underwriter, at the contemplated public offering prices; or
(b) The United States shall have become engaged in hostilities which have resulted in
declaration of war or national emergency, or other national or international calamity or
other event shall have occurred or accelerated to such an extent as, in the reasonable "N
Honorable Mayor.and City Council Members
City of Kent
April 17,2001
Page 3
opinion of the Underwriter, to have a materially adverse affect on the marketability of
the Bonds; or
(c) There shall have occurred a general suspension of trading on the New York Stock
Exchange; or
(d) A general banking moratorium shall have been declared by United States, New York
State or Washington State authorities; or legislation shall hereafter be enacted, or
actively considered for enactment, with an effective date prior to the date of the
delivery of the Bonds, or a decision by a court of the United States shall hereafter be
rendered, or a ruling or regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission or other
governmental agency having jurisdiction on the subject matter shall hereafter be made,
the effect of which is that:
(i) The Bonds are not exempt from the registration, qualification or other
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and then in effect, or
(ii) The Ordinance is not exempt from the registration, qualification or other
requirements of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended and as then in effect;
or
(e) A stop order, ruling or regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission shall
hereafter be issued or made, the effect of which is that the issuance, offering or sale of
r the Bonds, as contemplated herein or in the final Official Statement, is in violation of
any provision of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, and
which, in its reasonable judgment, adversely affects the marketability of the Bonds or
the market price thereof.
5. The Underwriter's obligations hereunder are also subject to the following conditions:
(a) At or prior to the Closing, Issuer will deliver, make available to the Underwriter, or
have adopted:
(i) The Bonds, fully registered form;
(ii) A certificate from an authorized officer of Issuer, in form and substance
acceptable to the Issuer and the Underwriter, stating that execution of the
Certificate shall constitute execution of the final Official Statement by the Issuer,
that the final Official Statement, to the knowledge and belief of such officer, after
due review, as of its date, did not, and as of the date of Closing does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit any statement or information
which is necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the
circumstances under which made, not misleading, that there has not been any
material adverse change in the normal operations or financial condition, nor to the
best of the City's knowledge, to the general economy of the City except as
described in the final Official Statement, and that the representations and
r
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Kent
April 17, 2001
Page 4
warranties of the Issuer contained in this Purchase Agreement were true and
correct when made and are true and correct as of the Closing;
(iii) The approving opinion of Bond Counsel dated the day of Closing in the form
attached to the Official Statement;
(vi) The following documents executed by authorized officers of the Issuer:
(1) A certificate, dated the day of the Closing to the effect that no litigation or
other proceedings are pending or threatened in any way affecting the
issuance, sale or delivery of, or security for, any of the Bonds,
(2) A certificate setting forth the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence
on the date of Closing which establish that it is not expected that the
proceeds of the Bonds will be used in a manner that could cause the Bonds
to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal
Revenue Code and any applicable regulations thereunder,
(3) Such additional certificates, instruments or opinions or other evidence as the
Underwriter may deem reasonably necessary or desirable to evidence the
due authorization, execution, authentication and delivery of the Bonds, the
truth and accuracy as of the time of the Closing of the Issuer's
representations and warranties, and the conformity of the Bonds and the
Ordinance with the terms thereof as summarized in the Official Statement,
and to cover such other matters as it reasonably requests, and
(a) A certified copy of the Ordinance.
6. Issuer will pay the cost of preparing, printing and executing the Bonds, if any, the fees and
disbursements of Bond Counsel, bond registration, rating fees (if any) and expenses, travel
and lodging expenses of Issuer's employees, and other expenses of Issuer.
The Underwriter will pay fees and disbursements of Underwriter's travel expenses, and other
expenses of the Underwriter. The Underwriter will pay the costs of preparation, printing, and
distribution of The Preliminary and Final Official Statements.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Kent
April 17, 2001
Page 5
7. This Purchase Agreement is intended to benefit only the parties hereto, and Issuer's
representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the
Underwriter, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase
Agreement. Should the Issuer fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or
if the Underwriter's obligations are terminated for any reasons permitted under this Purchase
Agreement, then neither the Underwriter nor the Issuer shall have any further obligations
under this Purchase Agreement, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in
accordance with Section 6.
8. This offer expires on the date, and at the time, set forth on Appendix A.
Respectfully submitted,
Banc of America Securities LLC
By: Dave Trageser
Vice President
Accepted April 17, 2001
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
By:
Its:
Banc of America Securities LLC
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF BONDS
(a) Purchase Price: $ (S per$100)plus accrued interest from the dated date to date of Closing.
(b) Par: S5,367,216.50
(c) Dated Date: April 15,2001.
(c) Denominations: $5,000 each.
(d) Form: Fully-Registered
(e) Interest Payment Dates: March I commencing November 1,2001.
(0 Maturity Schedule: Due: November 1,2017
ESTIMATED REDEMPTION SCHEDULE OF BONDS
Estimated Estimated
Redemption Principal Bond Redemption Principal Bond
November 1 Amount Numbers Rate Price November 1 Amount Numbers Rate Price
2001 $ 357,316.50 1-71 2009 S 360,000.00 576-647
2002 360,000.00 72-143 2010 360,000.00 648-719
2003 360,000.00 144-215 2011 360,000.00 720-791
2004 360,000.00 216-287 2012 360,000.00 792-863
2005 360,000.00 288-359 2013 350,000.00 864-933
2006 360,000.00 360-431 2014 350,000.00 934-1.003
2007 360,000.00 432-503 2015 350,000.00 1,004-1,073
2008 360.000.00 504-575
(g) Optional Redemption: The amount of Bonds to be retired each year is only an estimate. Bonds may be ^*,�
called earlier (but subject to the redemption provisions below) or later than the years shown above
depending on the receipt of such payments.
The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in
numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption,whenever
there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds
over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest payable on that interest payment date on
all unpaid Bonds. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the principal amount of Bonds called for prior redemption
shall not exceed the following maximum annual retirement schedule.
Maximum Principal Bond Nos.(Inclusive) Retirement Schedule and Permitted Call Dates
S 717,216.50 1 -143 On any interest payment date
2,157,216.50 1 -431 On November 1, 2002,and any interest payment date thereafter
3,237,216.50 1 -647 On November 1, 2004,and any interest payment date thereafter
4,667,216.50 1 -933 On November 1,2006, and any interest payment date thereafter
5,367,216.50 1 -1.073 On November 1,2008, and any interest payment date thereafter
(h) Closing Date: April 30,2001.
(i) Offer Expires: 11:59 p.m. April 17,2001.
Q) Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper& Shefelman PLLC
For Information Purposes Only:
Gross Interest Cost S
Less: Net Premium
Plus: Underwriter's Discount
Net Interest Cost S
Net Interest Cost%
DRAFT DATED MARCH 26, 2001
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,relating to Local
Improvement District No. 351; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates,
maturity and denominations of the Local Improvement District No. 351 Bonds;
providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Banc of America Securities LLC
in Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on Local Improvement
District No. 351 assessment installments.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Authorization and Description of Bonds. The total amount of
the assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 351 (the "District") in the City of
Kent, Washington (the "City"), created under Ordinance No. 3496, passed December 14,
1999, and confirmed by Ordinance No. 3513, passed June 6, 2000, was $6,911,946.49. The
30-day period for malting cash payments of assessments without interest in the District
expired on August 5, 2000, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was
S 1,544,729.99, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum
of$5,367,216.50. Local Improvement District No. 351 Bonds (the 'Bonds") shall,therefore,
be issued in the total principal sum of$5,367,216.50. The Bonds shall be dated April 15,
2001, shall be in the denomination of$5,000.00 each, except for Bond No. 1 which shall be
in the denomination of $7,216.50; shall be numbered from 1 to 1073, inclusive, in the
manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal
agent and co-fiscal agent of the State of Washington) deems necessary for the purpose of
identification; shall bear interest(computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day
months) payable annually on November 1 of each year beginning November 1, 2001, to the
maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds; and shall mature on November 1, 2017, in years
and amounts and bear interest in accordance with the following schedule:
5013263:.04 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
Bond Numbers Principal Interest
(inclusive) Amounts Rates
[INSERT SCHEDULE]
SECTION 2. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be
issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books
or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register"). Such Bond Register
shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal
amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner.
Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon
and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond
Registrar's receiving the Bond to be transferred, canceling it and issuing a new certificate in
the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the name and address of the
transferee on the Bond Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the
transferred Bond but may have a different inventory reference number or control number.
Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond
Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days
preceding any principal payment or redemption date.
SECTION3. Pavment ofBonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds
shall be payable solely out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 351 (the "Bond
Fund"), and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by
check or draft mailed to the registered owners on the interest payment date at the addresses
appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment
date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds
by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, at the option
of the owners.
soi8.6.:.w 2 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
SECTION 4. Redemption Provisions. The City reserves the right to redeem
the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in numerical order,
lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, whenever
there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier
numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest payable
on that interest payment date on all unpaid Bonds, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the
principal amount of Bonds called for prior redemption shall not exceed the following
maximum annual retirement schedule:
Maximum Bond Nos.
Principal Inclusive Retirement Schedule and Permitted Call Dates
$ 717,216.50 1 - 143 On any interest payment date
2,157,216.50 1 - 431 On November 1, 2002, and any interest payment
date thereafter
3,237,216.50 1 - 647 On November 1, 2004, and any interest payment
date thereafter
4,667,216.50 1 — 933 On November 1, 2006, and any interest payment
date thereafter
5,367,216.50 1 1073 On November 1, 2008, and any interest payment
date thereafter
All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be cancelled.
SECTION 5. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any
intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the
date fixed for redemption by first-class mail,postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any
Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond
Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have
been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually
received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to
accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed
when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed
within the same period, postage prepaid, to Banc of America Securities LLC at its principal
office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and to such
50132632.04 3 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Division Director of the
City shall determine,but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the
redemption of Bonds.
SECTION 6. Failure to Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when
properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on
that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until
that Bond,both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment
in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for payment by giving
notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds.
SECTION 7. PledQe ofAssessment Pavments. Assessments collected in the
District, together with interest and penalties, if any, are pledged to the payment of the Bonds
which are payable solely out of the Bond Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund
of the City in the manner provided by law. The Bonds are not general obligations of the
City.
SECTION 8. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed,
lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this
ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of
whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile
reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon.
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form,
manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or
entitled to the benefits of this ordinance:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington,
Local Improvement District No. 351 Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance.
50192692,04 4 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
Washington State Fiscal Agent
Bond Registrar
By
Authorized Signer
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive
evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered
and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance.
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an
officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile
signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those
Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated,
issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to
be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf
of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the
City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date
of issuance of the Bond.
SECTION 9. Bond Re istrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be
kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer
of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar
is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or
exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the
City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and
duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of
registration for the City's bonds and obligations.
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in
the Bond Registrar's Certificates of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may
become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond
501826642.04 5 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
Registrar and,to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its
officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any
committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners.
SECTION 10. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The
City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from
being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any
action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated
as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest
on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also
covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the
Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), is applicable to the Bonds, take
all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement
in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that
the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the
payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest
on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City
certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Intemal
Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not
be relied upon.
SECTION 11. Use of Bond Proceeds. The accrued interest, if any, on the
Bonds received from the Bond purchaser shall be used to pay debt service on the Bonds on
the first interest payment date. $ of the principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be
deposited in the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund to capitalize a portion thereof. The
remaining principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to finance the costs of carrying out
improvements in the District, including the repayment of any interfund loans therefor, and
to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. Until needed to pay those costs, the City may
invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings
50182682.04 6 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
may be retained in the Bond Fund and be spent for the purposes of that fund, and earnings
r subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be used for those tax or rebate purposes.
SECTION 12. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Banc of America
Securities LLC of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Bond
Purchase Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and
conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract
is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council
finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore
accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials.
The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the
purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract,with the approving legal opinion
of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington,
regarding the Bonds printed on each definitive Bond.
The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything
necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, including without limitation
the execution of the Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper application
and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
SECTION 13. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The City
Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated
, 2001 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), prepared in connection with
the sale of the Bonds. For the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser's compliance with
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), the City "deems final"
that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as
to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal
amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption,delivery dates,ratings and other
terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters.
501::69:.a 7 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
SECTION 14. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. To meet the
requirements of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating
underwriter for the Bonds, the City makes the following written undertaking (the
"Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Bonds:
(a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and
Notice of Material Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be
provided,either directly or through a designated agent:
(i) To each nationally recognized municipal securities
information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the
Rule ("NRMSIR") and to a state information depository, if any,
established in the State of Washington (the "SID") annual financial
information and operating data of the type included in the final official
statement for the Bonds and described in subsection(b) of this section
("annual financial infonnation'�;
(ii) To each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board ("MSRB'% and to the SID, timely notice of the
occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if
material: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non- r
payment related defaults; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service
reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on
credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of
credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6)adverse tax
opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; (7)
modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (8) Bond calls (other
than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds); (9)
defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing
repayment of the Bonds; and (11) rating changes; and
(iii) To each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID,
timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual
financial information on or before the date specified in subsection(b)
of this section.
(b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be
Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide
in subsection(a) of this section:
(i) Shall consist of(1)annual financial statements prepared
(except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with ^�
soia±sc.a 8 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
applicable generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the
Government Accounting Standards Board ("GASB'), as such
principles may be changed from time to time, which statements shall
not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial
statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be
provided; (2) a statement of the outstanding balance of obligations
secured by the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City at fiscal
year end, and the balance of cash and investments (based on market
value) in the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund at fiscal year end; (3)
the current assessed valuation of the District; and (4) a statement of
total assessments collected during the preceding fiscal year and the
amount of delinquent assessments as of the end of the fiscal year for the
District;
(ii) Shall be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID, not
later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal
year of the City (currently,a fiscal year ending December 31),as such
fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law,
commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2001;
and
(iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents,and
may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been
^ filed with each NRMSIR and the SID,or,if the document incorporated
by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to other
obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB.
(c) Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to
amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any
holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB,
under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule.
The City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID,
of the substance(or provide a copy)of any amendment to the Undertaking and
a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes
the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial
information containing the amended financial information will include a
narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to
be provided.
(d) Beneficiaries. The Undertaking evidenced by this section shall
inure to the benefit of the City and any holder of Bonds, and shall not inure to
the benefit of or create any rights in any other person.
5013=632.04 9 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
(e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this
Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In
addition,the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those
provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this Undertaking
become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as
confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other
counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City,and the City
provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and
the SID.
(f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as
practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking,
the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be
corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the
Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy
of any holder of a Bond shall be to take such actions as that holder deems
necessary, including seeking an order of specific performance from an
appropriate court,to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with
the Undertaking.
(g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking.
The Finance Division Director of the City (or such other officer of the City
who may in the future perform the duties of that office) or his or her designee
is authorized and directed in his or her discretion to take such further actions '' t
as may be necessary,appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of
the City in respect of the Bonds set forth in this section and in accordance with
the Rule, including, without limitation, the following actions:
(i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information
undertaken to be provided;
(ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection
(a) has occurred, assessing its materiality with respect to the Bonds,
and, if material, preparing and disseminating notice of its occurrence;
(iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is
an"obligated person" within the meaning of the Rule with respect to
the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide
any annual financial information and notice of material events for that
person in accordance with the Rule;
(iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated
agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors
and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the
Undertaking; and
5018268_.a 10 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
(v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking.
SECTION 15. TemRorary Bond. Pending the printing, execution and
delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may cause to be executed and
delivered to the purchaser a single temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the
Bonds. The temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest rates, principal
payment dates and terms and covenants as the definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully
registered Bond in the name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable to
the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for definitive Bonds as soon as they
are printed, executed and available for delivery.
SECTION 16. Fixing Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest rate on the
installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in the District is revised and
fined at the rate of % per annum.
SECTION 17. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
Y"^
5018:69:.04 11 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
SECTION 18. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect
and be in force five (5)days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC
LEE VOORHEES OF COUNSEL TO
CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 2001.
APPROVED the day of 2001.
PUBLISHED the day of 2001.
50132692.0+ 12 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and
correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
held at the regular meeting place thereof on , 2001, as that ordinance
appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect five
days after the publication of its summary in the City's official newspaper; and
2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the
meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the passage
of the Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
, 2001.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk
5013:68204 LID 351 Bond Ordinance
A 3•.I IPr i" u � .'rt"
KENT
WASSHINGTON
1
Councilmembers.•
r, The attached item will be added to Other
Business at the start of the April 17, 2001
council meeting. The attached ordinance declares
a water shortage emergency and limits certain
water uses and practices.
IKON# Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17, 2001
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: Water Emergency—Use Limitations
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City is currently experiencing drought conditions with its
current water levels within the City's water supply system. It is projected that during the coming
summer months, the water supply will be substantially lower than the summer months of previous
years. Staff finds that it is necessary to begin placing limitations on the use of water in order to
provide for a sufficient supply of water during this summer. Because of existing and predicted drought
conditions, an emergency exists and immediate limitations are needed on the use of water in order to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of the Kent.
The proposed ordinance limits the use of water for City water system customers. Landscaping
irrigation and lawn sprinkling are restricted on an odd/even date basis, and any new water meters that
are three inches or greater in diameter will not be activated and put into use until after October 1, 2001.
The proposed ordinance would be effective immediately upon passage and would remain in effect until
October 1, 2001,unless subsequently amended or repealed by Council.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURES REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember Uk moves, Councilmember,5;01-0 seconds
Passage of Ordinance No. 3553 , declaring a water shortage emergency and limiting certain
water uses and practices,
rm 14),
II II .Q.2n Sra c 3A
DISCUSSION:
ON: yl/
P , bl a CCB�N,rvt,a eQ...7a�
��
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No.
Jt
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, declaring a Water Shortage
Emergency and limiting certain water uses and practices.
WHEREAS, drought conditions exist and are forecast to exist due to
the current water levels within the City's water supply system that are substantially
lower than the water supply necessary to guarantee the supply of water through the
drier summer months and because of widespread predictions of a regional drought this
summer due to unusually low snowpack levels; and
WHEREAS, it is projected that during the coming summer months, the
water supply will be substantially lower than the summer months of previous years;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to place limitations on the use of water in
order to provide for a sufficient supply of water during the dry summer months; and
WHEREAS, an emergency exists due to current drought conditions and
immediate limitations on the use of water are necessary to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the citizens of the City of the Kent; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ram^
1 Water Emergency— Use Limitations
SECTION 1. Findings. A drought condition exists and is forecast to
occur within the City of Kent and within Kent's water supply source recharge areas. It
is prudent at this time to limit certain water uses and practices in order to conserve the
City's water resources until the severity of the drought is known.
SECTION 2. Water Emergency Declared. Based upon the foregoing
findings, the City Council declares a water supply emergency pursuant to Ch. 7.13 of
the Kent City Code ("KCC"). The existence of this emergency authorizes the City
Council to restrict or prohibit certain water uses, as more particularly described below.
These restrictions may be amended, added to, or relaxed as the City gathers more
specific information pertaining to impacts to its water supply resources.
SECTION 3. Water Use Restrictions. The City restricts the following
water uses and practices, which restrictions shall only apply to City of Kent water
system customers:
A. Pursuant to KCC 7.13.050(A)(1), the irrigating or watering of
landscaping, grass, plants, vegetables, vines, trees, shrubbery, gardens, ground cover,
or any other similar vegetation on all properties situated within the Kent city limits
�+ shall be limited as follows: those properties with a street address ending with an odd
number shall only be permitted to use water for the above-listed purposes on calendar
dates ending with an odd number; those properties with a street address ending with an
even number shall only be permitted to use water for the above-listed purposes on
calendar dates ending with an even number.
B. Pursuant to KCC 7.13.050(A)(5), water meters of three inch (3")
diameter or greater installed or applied for after the effective date of this ordinance
shall not be activated until October 1, 2001. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the
installation of these meters; however, if the meters are installed after the effective date
of this ordinance or if application to install these meters is made after the effective
date of this ordinance, the meters will not be activated or otherwise put into use prior
r^
2 Water Emergency— Use Limitations
to October 1, 2001. This restriction shall not apply to meter activations for public
safety purposes.
SECTION 4. Penalties. A violation of any one or more provisions in
this ordinance shall be subject to the penalties and enforcement provisions set forth in
KCC 7.13.060.
SECTION S. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to publish this
ordinance in accordance with KCC section 7.13.040.
SECTION 6. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
!^ SECTION 7. — fffective Date and Term. As provided by RCW
35A.11.090, this ordinance must be passed by a unanimous vote of the City Council
and shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. Further, this
ordinance shall remain in full force and effect until October 1, 2001. The City Council
may amend or repeal this ordinance prior to October 1, 2001, as it deems appropriate.
JIM WHITE,MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
3 Water Emergency— Use Limitations
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH,CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2001.
APPROVED: day of , 2001.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2001.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
�., Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\OrdinancelWaterEn gency-UseLitnits.doc
4 Water Emergency— Use Limitations
N
��- ;W141
( Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 17 , 2001
Category Bids
1 . SUBJECT: SOUTH 277TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was
April 12th. Due to time constraints, the bid packet is not
included in the Council packets. The Public Works Director
will make his recommendation at the Council Meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
r
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: R72 E12 5510 (277th Corridor/Auburn)
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the South 277th Street Improvement Project be awarded to
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. BA
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
� ,, �
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT &A
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE + ✓Z�
D. PUBLIC WORKS
E. PLANNING COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE W j 1-f ZL
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS �S lanj acq Pend
a v)�io'pufie. .pass 16fe acf�`oY-)
15 mi o
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
r MARCH 20, 2001
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Judy Woods, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT: May Miller, Stan Waldrop, Jim McKenney, Dea Drake, Marty Mulholland,
Ramona McCall, Pam Gettman, Jackie Bicknell
The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:06 PM. One item was added to the
agenda: Water Issue.
Approval of Minutes of March 6. 2001
Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2001 Operations
Committee. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0.
Approval of Vouchers Dated March 15, 2001
Judy Woods moved to approve the vouchers dated March 15, 2001. The motion was seconded
by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
Document Mana;ement Svstem Storage Devices
Information Technology Systems Division Manager Stan Waldrop said the Document
Management System Storage Devices are hardware for a Disk Array System that will store the
images to be accessed, and a Magneto-Optical Jukebox for obstacle disks to write the images to a
^backup and recovery plan. F.Y.I. Image was the low bidder for the application, and the $71,154
cost is included in the project budget. Senior Systems Analyst Jim McKenney added that if the
high performance disk system ever reached capacity, the Magneto-Optical could be used for near
line capacity which would take just a second or two to retrieve, but the primary idea was for
disaster recovery where a copy would be stored off site and used to rebuild the system in the
event of a disaster.
Tim Clark moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with
F.Y.I. Image for the purchase of a High Performance Disk System and Magneto-Optical
Jukebox subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. The motion was
seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0.
Copier Upgrades in the Print Shop
Multi Media Manager Dea Drake said there are currently two copiers in the Print Shop, both of
whose contracts have expired. A temporary rental machine has been used while staff has
researched new equipment. The City has budgeted for the addition of a color machine to
increase printing capability as those jobs are currently outsourced and the City is limited in the
amount it can do because of the cost. The budget was also approved for leasing a color copier as
well.
The Xerox line of copiers was determined to be the only copiers that could handle the needed
_.capacity, and the City would lease and rent those off the State and KCDA Contract. Two of the
contracts are for 42 month leases and one is a 48 month rental. The current operating budget is
Operations Committee, 3/20/01 2
almost$93,000 and the leases and rental have come in under budget at $77,000. Ms. Drake said
this would be the first lease by the City. In the past, the machines were rented, but some are no
longer available as rentals or the rentals have become too expensive. A 42 month lease period
was recommended because of the concern the machines wouldn't last longer than that.
Tim Clark asked if any of the new software programs would allow for easy transfer of data for
reproduction off the machinery. Jim McKenney responded that the digital copiers could be
hooked up as a potential source for scanning documents. The real difficulty would be in quality
control and managing the information and making sure it was appropriate to be stored into the
document repository. He said that type of use was not within the IT project scope, but it was
possible because of the digital technology, and the capabilities were there to apply if needed.
Stan Waldrop added that with the digitally connected copier, the capability is there to send other
projects directly to it rather than printing them out, scanning and then making copies.
Documents that are produced in Word or Page Maker can be sent directly to the copier without
having to make the first impression and then running it through. Dea Drake said both the black
and white and the color copier are digital and will be on the network, and the Print Shop will
start working with its customer base to allow access for direct printing. The color copier can also
be used as a backup at 50 black and white copies a minute output, which is faster than most of
the City's regular copy machines.
In response to Rico Yingling's question about the service contract, Ms. Drake said it was
negotiated through the State or the KCDA Contract and is at a cost per copy price. Response
time is a four hour turnaround on all the equipment. Xerox also has a"lemon law" guarantee in
writing that if at any time during the contract they can't make the machine function up to par,
they'll replace the machine with a new one. The base rate covers maintenance for each machine,
and there is also a meter rate charge which covers all maintenance and supplies except for paper
and staples. The meter rate charge is calculated into the cost per copy.
Judy Woods moved to recommend that Council approve replacement and upgrade of the
Print Shop copiers as follows: to lease a Xerox 5900 and a Xerox DocuColor 12 under a 42
month KCDA contract; and to rent a Xerox DC 480ST digital copier under a 48 month
State of Washington Contract. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
January Finance Report
Finance Director May Miller said even though there is only 1/12 of a year of information in
January, staff takes another look at the budget and all the trend lines, and makes sure there were
no one-time-only adjustments not on the trend. Governmental funds were looked at because
they're the ones having the most work done and the ones with the most flexibility and change.
The revenues in the General Fund were just a little bit under the budget trend line in January but
it's not known yet if that's a trend or just something that wasn't gotten quite right on the lines.
Building Permits look like they're coming in a bit lower, but that could be the timing of when the
permit came in and those need to be looked at on a three month basis instead of one. Property
Taxes are always usually within 1%. Sales Tax was a little bit over budget in January. February
was under and March (which information was received on the 20`h by phone),was back over
budget. The total dollar amount was $5,000 or 1% over budget, which is very close. Last year A-
Operations Committee, 3/20/01 3
Sales Tax was 14% over budget through March, so 1% over this year is quite a bit down
compared to last year.
r-
The Utility Tax is way above the line because of the higher electricity and gas rates and more
cell phone and DSL use, and that offsets the Building Tax at this point. The dollar amount of
permits was down even though the number of permits was almost the same as last year, so there
may not be as many large projects this year or one large project could have changed the value
last year. Recreation Fees were a little bit over, which could be caused by a weekend or when
the fees were mailed in as compared to last year. The same applies for Fines and Forfeits: the
amount of courts in a certain cycle or a calendar change could change the picture.
Expenditures right now are very close to budget, but that may be an accrual that didn't get
reversed, as there are 34 positions vacant in the General Fund and 49 vacancies citywide in
January. The Capital Improvement Fund, which comes only from Sales Tax and Real Estate
Excise Tax, is favorable, up $109,000. Both the Sales Tax and the Real Estate Excise Tax were
up. The Real Estate Excise Tax usually stays high when the interest rates are down because
there's more buying and selling.
Ms. Miller said there was no real consistent data to show any cause for alarm right now. Sales
Taxes are a little slower and Utility Taxes are up, so there's kind of a give and take. The interest
rate is now the lowest it's been since 1999 and hopefully that'll have a good effect. The Street
Fund and some of the other funds all appear to be pretty much on budget right now. Staff will
watch the balances and make sure no big trend in any one area is outpacing the other.
'Rico Yingling requested a financial report that could be mailed out to the Lodging Tax Advisory
Board. May Miller responded that the Page 18 detail showed that $140,000 had been budgeted
for the Lodging Tax Fund and the revenue had actually exceeded the budget last year. $162,379
was brought in plus another 51,417 in interest. 581,000 was budgeted to be spent on tourism
projects and 565,000 to help offset downtown land development. $64,000 of the $81,000 was to
go to the contract with the Chamber and the $17,000 left was to cover some general expenses the
Chamber had already made. As of January this year, the 564,000 had not been spent, but there is
now one check being processed out from that for$25,000.
The Lodging Tax Fund also contains another$55,000 that hasn't been budgeted for 2001. The
564,000 for the Chamber and the $55,000 that hasn't been earmarked shows in the 2001 column.
A 535,000 cash balance is left in the Tourism-Related Projects Account (in case there is an
economic downturn), and there is another$42,000 in overall revenue to make a total cash reserve
of 577,000 in uncommitted money. Mr. Yingling said he would ask the Chamber's marketing
person to bring an update on the Lodging Tax projects to the June 19`h Operations Committee.
Rico Yingling commented that one of the things people ask him about is the property tax and
why Kent does certain things as opposed to the way another city may do things. Mr. Yingling
asked if there was a way to depict the differences between communities' key revenue sources. If
Kent shows an upward trend in property taxes and another community shows a downward trend,
people tend to focus on that, but the other community may have a B&O Tax, etc. and Kent
doesn't. It's hard to explain to people that different communities get their revenue in different
Operations Committee, 3/20/01 4
ways, and to make them understand that in a community such as Bellevue, the B&O Tax is a
large revenue stream and one of the reasons why Bellevue's property taxes have remained stable
for the past five years. Kent may be more dependent on property tax, Tukwila may be more
dependent on retail sales tax, and Bellevue may be more dependent on a B&O tax. Brent McFall
said the B&O tax has become Bellevue's principle revenue source. Federal Way does not have a
B&O Tax,but the Federal Way Fire District Property Tax Levy and the City of Federal Way
property tax combined together are higher than the City of Kent's property tax. Mr. McFall
informed the Committee that the Association of Washington Cities puts out a very
comprehensive book every year on every city's taxes and the different tax rates and what their
revenue streams are.
Judy Woods suggested sending some information out to the citizens via the utility bills or putting
the information on the web page or the City's cable television channel. She said people also
should be reminded of where their property tax goes and how many other groups are taking a
portion of it, such as the school district, fire district, the hospital, and the library; yet the
percentage has stayed constant. Mr. McFall added that many of the significant changes in the
amount of property tax dollars paid are due to voter approved measures such as the school bond
issues and the Emergency Medical Service levy.
Water Issue
Tim Clark said a request would come from Public Works to that night's Council meeting dealing
with a relatively narrow time window for the City to fulfill its obligations to get the pipeline
project and the transfer of water from the Tacoma intertie underway. With the recent declaration
of drought, an Emergency Water Supply Declaration will also be brought to Council allowing for
permitting and expediting the drilling of the well at 212a', which is critical because of the stresses
on the City's water systems. The City of Kent's water supply system is 100% aquifer, which
means the snow-pack doesn't affect it but the rainfall does. The City has a"sharing of water"
agreement with other local jurisdictions in the community to prevent totally running out of water.
But, Mr. Clark warned, the City may have to face some constraints that will be inconvenient.
Judy Woods commented that it would be easy for everyone to conserve significant amounts of
water by changing day to day patterns of life such as how people may brush their teeth, shower,
and wash their hair. She pointed out that even though the Governor had declared a drought,
there had not yet been much heard from the large cities to the south and north, and she was
curious as to whether those cities may feel they are in such good shape that they won't be
declaring the same kinds of emergencies as Kent and other cities. Brent McFall said Tacoma
was in relatively good shape as they have a combination of surface water and ground water
supply. Seattle and the areas it serves, which is much of the Greater Seattle metropolitan area,
are in somewhat worse shape in that their water supply is almost exclusively snow melt which is
somewhere in the 55% of normal range.
As the Governor's declaration has indicated, the issue is statewide. The agricultural interests in
Eastern Washington are very concerned about the availability of irrigation water, and because of
that there should be a lot of statewide publicity. Kent will do its share, but the more the
neighboring cities are doing the same things, the more that will help Kent. Seattle and the other
purveyors that utilize Seattle water may not have to go to mandatory conservation methods such '"-+
Operations Committee, 3/20/01 5
as banning all lawn watering except for ornamental plants,which they did have to do in the early
to mid 1990's. Kent didn't have a problem that year because of the difference in source of water
supply, but there still was about a 30% reduction in the summer demand since users were
conserving because of the publicity. Kent's situation is unique because it relies on ground water,
wells, and springs that, for the most part, are 10 miles east going towards the foothills. Renton
also relies on ground water but their aquifer is in the Cedar River Valley right under downtown
Renton and they have an abundance of ground water in their aquifer. They probably won't
experience any problems and may actually sell some water to Kent for the summer.
Judy Woods said her ongoing concern was how much more future growth Kent would be able to
accommodate in terms of the resources available such as water. Brent McFall said water supply
would ultimately be the largest determiner of growth potential, as it is in many other parts of the
country.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
y
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
MARCH 13, 2001
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly, Tom Brotherton, Sandy
Amodt
STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford, Dominic Marzano, Steve Hamilton, Pat
Fitzpatrick, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: David Malik
The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5:05 PM. Interlocal
Agreement for Valley Special Response Team was added to the agenda as Item 95.
Aaaroval of Minutes of October 10. 2000
Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of October 10, 2000.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and passed 3-0.
Evac-U-Splints Purchase
Fire Chief Norm Angelo said there is an opportunity every year within the State EMS
System to apply for a grant which monies can be used for practical hands-on type things,
and doesn't require any matching funds. Assistant Fire Chief Steve Hamilton explained
that the grant was for S 1200 and is a Pre-Hospital Trauma Grant from the State of
Washington. The City has received the grant the last two years. Last year brass oxygen
regulators were purchased and the year before backboards were purchased. This year the
money will be used to purchase evac-u-splints, which are a new type of vacuum splint for
broken arms and legs.
Tom Brotherton moved to recommend to Council acceptance of$1200 in grant
funds from the State of Washington and authorization for the Fire Department to
apply said funds toward the purchase of Evac-U-Splints. The motion was seconded
by Sandy Amodt and passed 3-0.
Fire Engine and Aid Car Standards
Tom Brotherton said he had built a Discreet Event Simulation Model of Fire Department
dispatching by taking equipment allocation data from Valley Com and the Fire
Department to come up with answers to whether the City has enough equipment and
whether response times could be reduced. The City's system is designed to fight fires,
but most of the calls now are aid calls, and while the City has maintained a high level of
service, the analysis says there are cheaper things that can be done. Mr. Brotherton stated
that it was time to take a thorough look at the situation and see if there were some ways it
could be improved.
Some questions to ask are what kinds of standards are required for equipment and how
equipment should be utilized; what amount of staff would be required to be most cost
effective; how response protocol is chosen(such as sending four fire trucks to a structure
fire); and whether people could be transported to fires by different means. Mr.
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 2
Brotherton asked if there could be a van at every station so the fire trucks wouldn't have
to be taken out when they weren't needed. With 71% of the calls coming in being aid
calls, an aid car is needed at every station. The limit on response time is simply how
many stations there are and where they are located. All the analysis says there's very
little that can be done to increase response time except to get unreasonably fast
equipment or have more stations placed closer to where the incidents are.
Fire Chief Angelo said there were multiple choices in the running of a Fire Department.
Currently, the Department is working on a Strategic Plan and many of the key issues will
be addressed at those meetings. The community has made choices in the past because of
the ability to afford staffing, which is the most expensive and critical part, and the
problem isn't the apparatus as much as it is that the community has chosen the priority
action to be that of response. Ladder trucks respond to calls because they are the only
ones that are staffed at the minimal for people resources. In 1987, the Department did
have an aid car, an engine, and a ladder truck with one person on each. The Battalion
Chief would then pull somebody off one of the other rigs to make a two person company,
but it was found that a bare minimum of three people was needed to have an effective
unit. Since that time there has been an increased number of alarms and simultaneous
alarms. Also, a number of procedure and standard mandates have been handed down
from the state level.
The national standard is to send four persons, minimum, on a company and six people on
a truck company and to have at least 18 people at a residential fire. If the crews are split,
that risks firefighter safety and actually will take longer to get people to the scene. When
there are only two persons on a company, the wear and tear on the firefighters' bodies is
too great. The point is to get to the medical call, fire, or car accident as quickly as
possible, and it doesn't matter whether a Pinto or an SUV is being driven, it will take the
same amount of time to get there whether going Code Red or going with the traffic. If
the team went in a van, and didn't have another medical call, they would be at a
disadvantage and would lose time in going back to the station.
Response times are going up. It is difficult to send the big truck equipment out, and time
is lost because people are out of position on other calls. South King County has the
highest number of alarms at 13,274, and at different times of the day the traffic presents
unique challenges. Depending on the nature of the fire, more apparatus may be needed or
less. Apparatus can always be turned around if not needed, but if more is needed,
seconds and minutes are lost waiting on the equipment, and that makes a major difference
in the outcome of making a rescue, in firefighter safety, and saving property. The
difficulty is in not knowing the exact conditions that will be faced. There are also low
water areas in the community where there is the need for relay pumping. In a
commercial fire that continues to grow, some of the units on scene may have to be
deployed to a different location. There is no predictable degree of certainty of what will
be encountered, and so action is based upon actual experience. In a typical car accident
fuel may be coming out on the ground, which presents hazardous materials to deal with
and/or it may be a rescue of one or more people with the Jaws of Life.
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 3
Years ago the Department decided not to specialize. Seattle and other places specialize
with HAZMAT teams, aid cars, and engine companies. But to be more efficient and
make the best use of dollars, Kent' firefighters are asked to be able to do all of those
L- things. Every firefighter and every officer on a fire engine is an Emergency Medical
Technician.
Assistant Fire Chief Steve Hamilton said emergency calls are broken down into type—
whether it is a residential fire, a commercial fire, or an EMS call, and the Fire
Department then decides by the type how many and which apparatus will go to the scene.
If the code is minor fire, which is not too serious, two engines are sent out (in case there's
traffic problems or problems with the equipment). On a larger residential fire three
engines and a ladder truck are sent or four engines. On a commercial fire three engines
and a ladder truck are sent. Sometimes two engines would have been plenty, but
equipment isn't necessarily taken off every apparatus which then allows that vehicle to
immediately be put back into service and be ready to go to another call. The serious
HAZMAT calls aren't handled with fire engines,but those go to the call anyway to check
it out.
Chief Angelo conceded that there was a need for at least one more station, and the
community, based upon facts, should support some additional staffing of equipment. But
there would need to be basic pumping capacity in each zone or area that a station
responds to and a triple combination company that has hose, water, and a pump.
Tom Brotherton asked for clarification on what was needed at a fire or on an aid call. He
commented that because of the standardization and cross training of everyone, the City
has a very flexible response system. Any one unit can go to any situation and take care
of it, but taking the fire truck to a service call is more costly and not a particularly
appropriate thing to do. All the people may be together to leave from there to go to
another call, but that scenario is fairly rare. On the average, a call comes in every 48
minutes and most service calls don't last that long. The chances that another incident
would be in that same area with that team the prime respondent is pretty slim (as proven
statistically). Chief Angelo asserted that very frequently the response would not be from
the station; units may be responding from inspections or other calls.
Connie Epperly commented that as part of the planning process of the Strategic
Committee, surveys were being sent out to the community asking what community
expectations were for response times and what was expected from the Fire Department.
That feedback will give a good understanding of what the citizens want.
Mr. Brotherton said his analysis used three months of data from November, December
and January. He went through every call to categorize it by type and where it came from,
then used that data to set up a model calibrated to average response time. He then tried a
best case scenario of having aid cars everywhere and could only achieve a 5% reduction
in response time. Response time is almost solely dependent upon geometry, and adding
equipment did not bring the figures below 5.9 minutes. With that kind of response time,
using the American Heart Association's cardiac arrest case model, the percentage of
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 4
people in Kent that should survive cardiac arrest and walk out of the hospital would be
around 30%. If a heart attack took place in the hospital, the best survival rate is 67%. look"
a
To decrease the response time very much would take a major building process and more
aid cars closer to the calls to minimize the actual distance of travel. That would be
expensive and would require different training and other protocol adjustments. One thing
that some places are doing is'setting up so when a call comes, the dispatcher can give
CPR instructions over the telephone. Chief Angelo said that was also done in Kent. Mr.
Brotherton added that automatic defibrillators could be placed strategically around the
City and should be in every police car, in the Senior Center, at the Commons sports
facilities, etc. A strategic analysis should be done of where they need to be placed.
Kent's very flexible response system is very expensive compared to some alternatives,
and it would take a major rethinking of what equipment was necessary and whether a
structure on fire must be saved. If the job is to save people's lives, a system can be
created that's much less expensive than what's in place now. If the job is to keep fires
from jumping to other structures, that can be done cheaper than the way it's done now. If
it's to try and save as much of the burning structure as possible, that's what Kent is set up
to do. But it's not set up to be a good EMS system, which type service is needed for 70%
of the calls. Only 4Yz% of calls in the three month period were fire calls.
Chief Angelo said the difficulty was that the calls vary in their nature and also in the
impact. There are areas where the Department doesn't have basic pumping capacity and
it takes a minimum of three people to even stand outside and shoot water at a fire. The
capital part is the cheapest part. Two units are needed even for a CPR because of the
things that need to take place. The patient has to be moved out while CPR continues and
that takes information gathering and coordination at the scene. He agreed that there were
alternatives to look at. Response time could be significantly reduced by bringing in a
couple more engines for basic pumping capacity. After that, staffing smaller apparatus
such as aid cars could be looked at because those people could help at a fire. That
combination of getting adequate work force on scene is every bit as important as having
the equipment and the flexibility to go somewhere next. Tom Brotherton explained that
his model analysis indicates that more people could be gotten on the scene more quickly
by using a different mode of transport of smaller, cheaper vehicles instead of sending
everyone in fire trucks from the stations.
Assistant Fire Chief Dominic Marzano questioned whether that would really get people
there anv faster. It's very important thing to get effective resources to an event. The
survivor rate is extremely dependent upon a third service that Kent firefighters don't
provide, and there are a lot of events that are very hard to categorize such as people
getting stuck in equipment, a collapsed trench, etc. To put all the eggs in one basket and
hope that a whole bunch of people in one van could get there quickly enough is not going
to be any more efficient than sending individual trucks coming from different directions.
And traffic may be jammed with nowhere for people to get out of the way, effectively
stopping the emergency vehicle.
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 5
Many departments are actually going into neighborhoods in order to get a more
affordable and quicker response. If things change, it's easy to sell a house, recoup the
i� costs, and move to another place. But that doesn't change whether the response is with
aid car or fire engine from that location. Also, pieces of change have to be dealt with
separately. The US Fire Administration has done a lot of statistical analysis of effective
and efficient fighting forces and efficient resource management. There are volumes of
data which can be downloaded from the US Fire Administration web site. One of the
best staffing studies was done in Seattle, which was a response study that showed the
number of personnel needed on apparatus to be effective. Also, there are standardized,
nationwide mandates and guidelines that say how equipment is built and what equipment
can be used. In fact, Labor& Industries is fining some departments for not having an
adequate number of personnel or adequate amount of equipment at an event.
The first component to consider is the actual resources available, and the second one is
the staffing site, which is a determination on the part of the City on how to address calls.
In some cases it is more cost effective to be a little more specialized, but that raises other
costs because resources have to taken from somewhere else in order to specialize. It's an
organizational decision whether to try and reduce response times with staffing more aid
cars, but whatever is determined, there are dollars involved. Tom Brotherton commented
that if aid cars are sent on calls rather than sending the engines out, the engines will last
much longer. If an aid car is added to a station that doesn't have one, that will save
enough money to pay for a firefighter. A fire engine's life span is seven years. In that
seven years, the fire engine will go on 450 fire calls and 7,600 aid calls. If cheaper
equipment was exchanged for more expensive equipment where possible and the engines
went only on fire calls and aid cars were sent on aid calls, there would be considerable
savings which could be used for people resources.
Chief Angelo said he didn't disagree with what Mr. Brotherton was saying. Many of the
issues are intertied with one another. One approach that could be used is to give some
basic capabilities in each of the major zones and then add some capability of the smaller
units. A concern is in jumping from one to the other, as experience says that quite often
the men are not in quarters where they can jump from one apparatus to the other, and 30
seconds of time can be critical in the way an incident is handled. He expressed concern
about firefighter safety, public safety, and being able to get effective units to the scene.
Effective units depends on the ability to not only have the right amount of people, but
when the situation changes, having the flexibility then to turn to the apparatus if it is
needed.
Connie Epperly acknowledged that Tom Brotherton had done a lot of work and has some
great ideas. She suggested that he and the Fire Department sit down together and go over
his data and then bring it to the Strategic Planning Committee.
Sandy Amodt questioned whether more mini-emergency type hospitals or contracting
with some of the clinics would help with the response time. Chief Angelo said a program
called Adept works with the medical clinics and the insurance companies and allows a
person at a lesser level of medical condition to be sent where they can be seen sooner and
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 6
where it doesn't cost as much money. The program has just finished the second level of a
pilot and is still being refined, but it's showing promise.
A
EMS Task Force 2002 Update
Connie Epperly said she had been involved with the EMS Task Force 2002 for about six
months and it had been very frustrating. The Task Force has worked through a lot of cost
efficiencies and different things, but King County has not come up with any funding for
EMS. If funding goes to a levy, the citizens will vote on it. Kent could veto the levy, but
then the Council would be making the decision for every citizen in King County.
The City is working on language to add to the levy that would allow Kent to explore
alternatives within the next six years and to look at the possibility of a South County
EMS Unit or a sub regional service, basically still keeping it one system. Federal Way
and Auburn have both indicated they are willing to work with Kent. The issue will be
brought forward to the Council Workshop on the 201h, and by that time the wording of the
resolution will have come together and Council can then decide as far as putting it on the
levy. North King County has different needs than South King County, and downtown
Seattle has different needs than Bellevue. The added language will help ensure that the
needs of the Southend are met.
Norm Angelo said the issue became one of political responsiveness that turned into an
issue of finances. Operationally, Kent has a tremendous relationship with King County
EMS and with the medics. The Task Force is working to operate within the system to
have more South County say or control. It wouldn't be just a Kent system or a two or
three city system, but a system that would allow continuation much the way it is right
now but with control of direction by the South County communities, including fire
districts. The greater issue right now that many of the cities are concerned about is the
responsiveness of county government to local government, but it's important that any
South County system be tied into King County's system so one could go elsewhere in the
county and get the same level of service.
Tom Brotherton commented that King County, after the levy failure, had promised the
people that they would find a different financing method and would not rely on a levy.
The question has been the funding method for EMS whether it should be paid for with a
six year levy versus having it be part of the basic budget of King County as original
service. Council has agreed that it should be a part of the basic budget, not something
over and above the normal regional services that would require an extra levy. King
County can't think of another way to fund it other than the levy and can't justify raising
taxes to cover it or taking funding away from something else. Any one of five cities in
King County could veto the levy, but if it was vetoed and funding didn't go on the
budget, EMS could go away.
Ms. Epperly said the Mayor and Brent McFall have guaranteed that a task force would be
put together from all the South County cities and started immediately after the report is
given to and accepted by the EMS 2002 Task Force.
c�
Public Safety Committee, 3/13/01 7
Interlocal Agreement for Valley Special Response Team
r-- Police Chief Ed Crawford said the Interlocal Agreement is a contract between Auburn,
Renton, Tukwila, Kent and the Port of Seattle regarding the Emergency Response Team
Operations. Kent used to have an Emergency Response Team within the City and there
was also a Valley team made up from Auburn, Renton, and Tukwila. In the interest of
efficiency, it was decided that it would be best if the five areas (four cities and the Port of
Seattle)combined and became the Special Response Team in this region. The Team is
governed by a board and has working arrangements with 7-8 people assigned to it from
within each city. There will be mutual cooperation and call outs between the cities and
the Port. The Law Department and Washington Cities Insurance have both looked at the
contract and approved it.
Sandy Amodt moved to accept the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Valley Special
Response Team Operation Agreement. The motion was seconded by Tom
Brotherton and passed 3-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
ice^
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
—, MARCH 19, 2001
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Connie Epperly,Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Mike Martin, Gary Gill, Cyndi Wilbur, Tom Brubaker,
Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim Rust, Elsy Rust, Aron Golden, Stephen Mitchell
The meeting was called to order by Committee Member Connie Epperly at 5:03 PM as Chair
Tim Clark had not yet arrived. One item was added to the agenda: Replacement of Van.
Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2001
Committee Member Rico Yingling moved approval of the minutes of February 27, 2001. The
motion was seconded by Committee Member Connie Epperly and passed 2-0. (Ms. Epperly
asked to receive Tim Clark's approval on the motion.)
King County Recycling Grant Agreement
Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said two optional recycling events are held every year
which include the Business Recycling Program. $117,000 was received from the County for the
events.
Rico Yingling moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement, direct staff to
accept the grant and establish a budget for $117,208. The motion was seconded by Connie
Epperly and passed 2-0. (Ms. Epperly asked to receive Tim Clark's approval on the motion.)
Seattle/King Countv Hazardous Waste Management Grant Acceptance
Don Wickstrom said there are two citywide household hazardous waste collection/recycling
events and a grant for $39,421 was received to fund the events.
Rico Yingling moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement, direct staff to
accept the grant and establish a budget for$39,421. The motion was seconded by Connie
Epperly and passed 2-0. (Ms. Epperly asked for concurrence on the motion from Tim Clark.)
42°d Avenue South Boundary Line Resolution
Don Wickstrom said 42nd Avenue South Boundary Line Resolution was part of the Kentview
project. They were required to improve 420d Avenue from Orillia Rd or 212`h to 2161h and there
was an issue that half of the right-of-way was in Unincorporated King County, while the west
side was in SeaTac and the east half of the center line was in Kent. The part with King County
was resolved, and because of the wetlands the road was shifted more to the west and Polygon
bought property within the City of SeaTac where they wanted the road to go. In order for all of
the road to be in the City of Kent's jurisdiction, Polygon has asked for a boundary adjustment
agreement with SeaTac to bring that portion of the road inside the city limits of Kent. Rico
Yingling asked if Kent would have to maintain the road and pay for the land. Mr. Wickstrom
said Kentview would pay for and maintain the road.
Public Works Committee, 3/19/01 2
Rico Yingling recommended authorization to adopt a resolution relating to modification of
boundaries along 42"d Avenue South and an agreement with SeaTac to adjust the common
boundary lines along said right of way. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and
passed 2-0. (Ms. Epperly asked to receive Tim Clark's concurrence on the motion.)
Tacoma Second Pipeline Project: Cost Sharing Agreement: Public Works Trust Fund
Loan Agreement, Purchase of Pine
Don Wickstrom said an agreement was executed in 1985 for the Tacoma Second Pipeline Project
which is now in the design phase for an upper portion of the pipe system. That phase, if
implemented, could get water to the City of Kent by July, 2002. The parties to the agreement
include Seattle, Tacoma, Lakehaven Utility District, and Covington Water District. All of the
parties have concurred with the contractual language of the agreement. Several things have
delayed and pushed the project further out such as getting the Habitat Conservation Plan
Incidental Take permit issued and all the parties to adopt the agreement. The big hurdle for the
project is the HCP. If it is approved and the Incidental Take Permit issued, then there's a 99%
chance the project would go ahead.
The design phase consists of about 11 miles of 60-70 inch diameter pipe. One problem is that
1'/4 miles has to go through sensitive areas and the permit requires the work to be done by
August of this year. Tacoma is in the process of approving the agreement and may finalize it by
June, but for them to award a contract and have the 1'/4 miles of pipe done by August would be
impossible. However, a clause in the agreement states that if the parties (Covington Water
District and Kent) want to proceed with construction and pay for the pipe themselves,Tacoma
would authorize that. Covington has already authorized Tacoma to proceed with purchasing the
pipe and advertising for the construction of the entire project. By June the HCP should be done
and the financing in place so Tacoma would be in a position to award the construction project.
(Tim Clark arrived at S:I5 PM and took his place as Chair of the Committee)
The Council on Environmental Law and Policy raised the issue of the water right at Clark
Springs. The water right was issued in 1986 and is good for 20 years. However, all the facilities
have to be in and full use taken of the water within the 20 years. A five year window is given to
construct the facilities, and every year the five year window expires, the DOE grants another.
The expiration this year is in December, and CELP, based on their research of the water right,
says the DOE can issue an extension and they can challenge it. A Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) was worked out with DOE with the help of all the agency's attorneys, to
get DOE to concur to issuing the construction permit extension (but this time giving a lot more
time) if the parties would sign the MOU. The conditions of the MOU relate to the concern that
under the original water right the place of use description didn't include Seattle and Kent. That
issue was resolved and a new description will include Kent, Seattle, and all of Tacoma. Mr.
Wickstrom said the construction permit expires December 8, 2001. Tacoma holds the water
right certificate that includes the provision that the facilities must be built within five years, and
when they submit their application, they also have to submit a signed MOU of potential changed
conditions and be subject to the modified conditions. DOE then will review that and hopefully
issue a new construction time extension subject to the MOU.
Public Works Committee, 3/19/01 3
The DOE did an Environmental Analysis on the project and in the HCP they committed to higher
river flows than what was outlined in the DOE water right permit, so the DOE wanted language
/-� the permit to reflect those changes. They are also pushing conservation and want a 10%
conservation over a 10 year period, or 1%per year for all the parties that sign the MOU. Kent
has cut consumption in the last 8 years by 23% and it's questionable whether another 10%would
be attainable. The agreement was structured to be region wide so one party may be able to make
up the difference for another. Also part of the MOU is that the parties should work together to
identify the tributaries within the basin that may be having endangered species problems related
to fish and try to come up with alternatives or solutions. The MOU applies to all parties to the
project, which include Seattle, Tacoma, Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utility District,
State Department of Health, and the Department of Ecology.
Mr. Wickstrom said if House Bill 1001 passes the Senate and the House and is signed by the
Governor, the City would get a$10,000,000, 20 year loan at 0.5% interest from the Public
Works Trust Fund for the project. Tim Clark commented that the City had financed its part of
the Tacoma Pipeline Project with a raise in water rates. He asked if the loan was part of that or
just supplemental funds. Mr. Wickstrom said that in December, 1999, to pay for the project,
water rates were increased in a two step scenario of the increase in rates and a systems
development charge. The water rate portion has been doing fine and making the projections as
thought. The system development portion has not. The loan would help to stay within the
original water right and systems development charge because it's at 0.5% interest and the
estimate was 6%. The money for the loan would come out of the existing rate without any
change in rate. Mr. Wickstrom said the City would also apply for another$10,000,000 loan next
year at 0.5% interest.
Connie Epperly recommended that the Mayor be authorized to advise Tacoma to proceed
with the purchase of sufficient quantity of Second Supply Project water pipe to traverse the
sensitive areas associated with the early phase portion of the Second Supply Project. The
motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Rico Yingling recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Public Works Trust Fund
Loan Agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the
Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0.
Rico Yingling recommended that the Mayor be authorized to execute the MOU related to
the Second Supply Project water right. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and
passed 3-0.
No Parkin; Ordinance
Because there was no one present familiar with the ordinance, Deputy City Attorney Tom
Brubaker suggested amending the motion to approve on the condition that it was just a
housekeeping measure and didn't change any existing no parking zones currently in effect in the
City. If the Ordinance should include changes or amendments, it would need to be brought back
to Committee.
Public Works Committee, 3/19/01 4
Connie Epperly moved to approve on the condition that it was just a housekeeping
measure and didn't change any existing no parking zones currently in effect in the City.
The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling. Tim Clark clarified that acceptance of the ? 1
proposed ordinance was with the understanding it would not introduce any new No Parking
zones. The motion then passed 3-0.
Tom Brubaker assured the Committee that if there were changes to the ordinance or to the No
Parking zones, the item would be brought back to committee at the next regular meeting.
Declaration of the Water Supply Emergency
Don Wickstrom said some projects had been identified that, if implemented, may help to
eliminate any forced conservation. They include drilling the replacement well at 212`h; purchase
of the pumps and motors and the construction work for the well already drilled at Kent Springs;
reworking the Auburn intertie route, which because of the road project was originally going to be
tom out and closed during construction; and a potential intertie with Soos Creek Sewer and
Water District. Because the rainfall has been about 54% of normal the City's sources at Clark
Springs and Kent Springs are stressed and all the aquifers are down and haven't recouped
enough to allow water back into the gravity system infiltration gutter. Since there could be a
significant problem around July or August, staff is asking that there be an Emergency
Declaration that would allow the projects to be built without having to follow the normal bid
package procedure as that would save quite a bit of critical time.
Tom Brubaker clarified that the action was an ordinance declaring an emergency to authorize the
City to go ahead with some public works construction projects related to the City's water supply
and by declaring an emergency, the competitive bidding requirements could be avoided. He
recommended that the motion be amended to say recommend Council authorization to declare
an emergencv authorizing construction of certain public works projects without the requirement
of competitive bidding. By getting the projects constructed, the actual water supply emergency
may be alleviated or forestalled.
Rico Yingling recommended Council authorization to declare an emergency authorizing
construction of certain public works projects without the requirement of competitive
bidding. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Don Wickstrom said
the item would be on the next night's Council agenda under Other Business.
Tim Clark asked that the record reflect that the Chair voted yes on Motions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
today's agenda.
Replacement of Van
Don Wickstrom said one of the City vans was stolen last week while at a worksite and hasn't yet
been recovered. Public Works needs to purchase a replacement van and the cutoff date is March
31'` for the State Auction. He asked for Committee concurrence on replacing the van so he could
get it on the State bid by the set date, otherwise it wouldn't be a State bid vehicle. The purchase
would go to the Council in April.
Public Works Committee, 3/19/01 5
Connie Epperly moved to put the City of Kent's request on a State bid for vehicles to
replace a missing van. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Tim Clark complimented Public Works on the quick filling of potholes caused by the previous
serious rainfall. A major pothole passed on the way to work in the morning was already filled in
by the afternoon.
The meeting adjourned at 5:55 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
S a eel a h,�w� et
EXECUTIVE SESSION
r-
A) Land Acquisition