Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/19/2012
CITY OF KENT ����J ii/i iIJ✓/r >/ r rah' l/r % /��//; City Council Meeting Agenda �. June 19, 2012 Mayor Suzette Cooke Dennis Higgins, Council President Councilmembers Elizabeth Albertson m Bill Boyce Jamie Perry x Dana Ralph u Deborah Ranniger we Les Thomas CIFY CLERK u �' KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS KENT June 19, 2012 W>_HI. �N Council Chambers MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Dennis Higgins, President Elizabeth Albertson Bill Boyce Jamie Perry Dana Ralph Deborah Ranniger Les Thomas ********************************************************************** SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5.00 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Infrastructure Funding Staff 80 minutes 2. Intergovernmental Issues Michelle Wilmot 10 minutes ********************************************************************** COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Proclamation - Juneteenth Day D. Public Safety Report 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, Resolution - Adopt 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Workshop - Approve B. Payment of Bills - Approve C. 2012 Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Grants - Accept D. Downtown Strategic Action Plan, Planning Principles - Approve E. Consolidating Budget Adjustment Ordinance - Adopt F. King County Animal Services Agreement - Authorize (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED G. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant Amendment — Accept H. Washington State Patrol SECTOR Service Level Agreement — Authorize I. Downey Farmstead Restoration Consultant Contract — Authorize J. Cooperative Agreement with the King County Flood Control District for Completion of Emergency Flood Protection Measures — Authorize K. Washington State Parks and Recreation Boating Safety Program Award — Accept L. DaUit Cove Off-Site Sewer, Bill of Sale — Accept S. OTHER BUSINESS 9. BIDS A. Green River Levee Flood Protection Large Super Sack Removal Pre-Bid 10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Pending Litigation 12. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Regional Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.KentWa.gov 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. m m O W W Ot O T v U C_ - N y O O T C J W i3 Ot y 10 C m J 0 J V V m m ._ O C m v i N O a m m �O J V U C m a m W Cyo- m m a'Ci � VQm miUNm TLC > ` 0w u Otmy TS p W �n F O O W �n '/� p C L y O a L Y vwi N E c O u N U W V m 0 a- wC Y , 9 a p w y C V w U J m W U m W - O O W C = T _ N m V C C i m C m o E w 0 u m m 0 �_ C OV OI; OI� � JUCw WL LLJwmC mJ0 m ml C Q m J O C O w i O ` C O J W W Ti T Ot V L O 0- V L OI O m a T 0 E m O L D `OI ` C J J `N W �n T J Q m V D'U C Y O L >_ % V y �' w C �n W C W O O a1 y y 3 w '�-� W • m W /� 10 y m y O T w w C N 10 VJi W v C U T J v Vp V¢I • a w C d N o c m y y E w y � E o > W w T C D_ wEJu N•L ,� m O pM I us 'm D ' J cc � a � E � � W -o WE '- J Em v . mm mm • -o J W r m w =on w m -O E � n � na � L E D J o - a U L 0 O J a J o = .w, a J m J m O t ,m, '^ £ o QV Off; 3mav, v, m 3 ._ aaaL ay .. =0190 UE _ T w W o V w '^ > p V' i w w > W � � w W � Vm iy m � J y - L V W L O L L O C m 0 m F m y i 0 = 0 w O C C 10 d t V C W y j 0 9 U Ot W V E i C C O.y0 O V J a 0 Q m C q a C W m m W 'U C U m C O O E 'y M U � C O O J E E °' _ Y O 'C w = v V 3i O m � C N J E YJ E 0 .VOV Cot� JC WC W vwi V -OO m EYm K .G a a t w a w J V E J T o E `w E , C L E m E aCi 3 W U v v C V E U - M v -OO V VO m V V w o 0 V1 OV W i w w E m v L f m C T •j m E � O a w O" L C V m T E C i O L 0 y O y W E 01U N m m a C m 0 O N W Obi N W y C N N N i U Vp w W w w w O V U O T- V N .0 0 Ifl - M m E S U O >> y U V y f m O y w C > E L w m C E V a F Z v o m o o H '^ 3 y p o 10 '° mFw E C F N J C U o m m m - L N ,� O V C W L a f w L C w L w v i OV Z w C o A W m ^C v T m F W C W Y ._ w � O E E -oo 0 w f w one a � ° o� w N J W M o�� � V .G o,� v -o .. W`M 3 0 W Y ?i U W E m y m O E �_ L w m U i W 'O _ C w J U C C 0 ?r W E O T m a U E 01 VVi 0 E C w C W N > C m L O3 L m o N J L C U y a 3 = C W m 0 J O W i J J W W J m • m W N y, F W >_ E ,� a U - E - u u V o u M Ydti mL ui� CdLN Vl mN 3 mti a m w m F w " = a a" a ._ ._ a V V C C O V m C m w ? W V E E v C � o w y. 0 C v O Y1 u m u m F a 3 o Q F v V m m o OU V ° m n $ $ w V > £ OU O �° � a Q w � W 02: a Q2: a Q2: v p O G` O > ^ L •zr E L n o ca > i3 V N Q N O w L • C C ` aSi a J a O F O N r� 0, C �r0j (n 3 O p _ C Q W V = z O Ln = w M O N y W O Ti N f m U1 b O ,y W W N m C - O C i� W OJ - r. r. N T M ` m rz 0 > M C � V _ M w U y a� L Q a J i0 C V i0 Z V C t G 1N V V 3 V m 0 `0 W 0 C N m v O C O C M M m OU Y .ram `mU Q 3 YrvY V N N E LU W r U1 C m O N AO J W '0 y W Ot V O Ot E a 0 i O W C y 1 L (j , - M T C O U � -o � � M 3 L � 3 .1T ,v`c ww Um scow a m m T 3 LD wapi U C m J m N v v 0 W J v O O 3 O b W O > v C G y • U m T U E :u T J a W y) O i 0 U pU W m LL j T C C 0 w J T w w o Q C w m U V U O - i T 0 W N C O a 3 K O j U VI C 0 L O vpi W j W W q 0 IT a 3 U > > m Y w Y 0, C C H m Wm 3 co E W ° {/1 m 3 a W ° "w °_ w air `or u''9i � `m -mo3 °-o oo � °�' � Mw G C G E wv COOw Z m O1i L m W O Orz Wt W C i a W N � O�O. O V a H j W � m .� m w D r Y Q u N o O L v A E m 0 •Y T 3 m G �. w w w u O ` v 0 O. L N FLU U +' W W '� UZW >- C , u , - Vl v O a� 6 a K in V m Q V > 4 a QF � m0 Q mU �, l_ ti COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1) Infrastructure Funding 2) Intergovernmental Issues 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 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) Public Recognition B) Community Events C) Proclamation - Juneteenth Day D) Public Safety Report PROCLAMATION Whereas, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, formally abolishing slavery in the United States of America; and Whereas, word about the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation was delayed some two-and-one-half years, to June 19, 1865, in reaching authorities and African-Americans in the South and Southwestern United States; and Whereas, Emancipation Day observations are held on different days but are celebrated in 41 different states, including Washington; and Whereas, June 19th has a special meaning to African-Americans, and is called "JUNETEENTH" combining the words June and Nineteenth, and has been celebrated by the African-American community for 147 years; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Suzette Cooke, Mayor of the City of Kent, Washington, do hereby declare June 19, 2012, as JV NG TaErENT17 In the City of Kent, Washington, and urge all residents to become more aware of the significance of this celebration in African-American history and in the heritage of our nation and city. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Kent to be affixed this 19th day of June, 2012. S ze to Cooke, Mayor e KEN1' WASHINGTON KENT Agenda Item: Public Hearings — 5A TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, Resolution — Adopt MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. approving the 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). SUMMARY: This Resolution would approve the 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). State law requires that each city develop a local TIP and that it be updated annually (RCW 35.77.010). The 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP represents the City's proposed transportation improve- ment work program for the next six years. It includes planning studies, street, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic signal, and transit improvements as well as street maintenance and preservation projects. Including these projects in the Six-Year TIP allows the City to begin looking for funding partners and apply for grants. This year, all state grant agencies have required that every submitted project must be included in a city's adopted Six-Year TIP. This Six-Year TIP reflects the eight projects for which the City has already applied for grants and includes projects for which the City plans to apply for grants later this year. EXHIBITS: Resolution and Six-Year TIP 2013-2018 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the 2013 through 2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. RECITALS A. After proper notice, the City Council of the City of Kent held a public hearing at the regular meeting of the City Council at 7:00 p.m. on June 19, 2012, to consider public testimony on the City's proposed 2013 through 2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. B. Having considered public testimony to the plan, the Council would like to adopt the 2013 through 2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. - Adoption. The 2013 through 2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached and filed with City Clerk, is hereby adopted. 1 2013-2018 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of 2012. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 2012. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRU BAKE R, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 2012. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\Civi I\I sol ution\SixYea rTIP2018.docx 2 2013-2018 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2013 - 2018 AirtMY'"��D{bN wfKv'�r�rzft4W'WMNfNJ'Ay�w��,o rr r A! K I f n.f{. t 1 GnPnr ruti aruid � Q.'�,�'t�l'i,CarYpp. kri�t r�A -Lease flu r,haw Mayor Suzette Cooke KENT Timothy J. LaPorte, PE, Director of Public Works CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2013 - 2018 Table of Contents: 1. Resolution adopting the 2013 —2018 Six Year TIP 2. Introduction 3. Listing of the Projects 4. Project Descriptions 5. Map of the Projects 6. Contact Information On the cover: Typical traffic backup at a Railroad Crossing in Kent This page intentionally left blank for Resolution This page intentionally left blank for Resolution Introduction What is the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a short-range planning document that is updated annually based on needs and policies identified in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the 2008 Transportation Master Plan. It represents Kent's current list of needed projects that may begin work in the next six years. The document also identifies secured or reasonably expected revenue sources for each of the projects for which funding is currently known. The TIP serves as a draft work plan for the development of the local transportation network. Once adopted, the TIP helps to guide funding and implementation priorities during the development of the transportation portion of the 6-Year Capital Investment Program (CIP). The CIP can be considered a subset of the TIP. The CIP shows the City-funded portion of projects and is constrained by current budget forecasts, whereas the TIP shows the complete project list with the variety of funding sources and partners involved. Mandated by State Law State law requires that each city develop a local TIP, that it be updated annually (RCW 35.77.010), and that it be submitted to the State Department of Transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption. It represents an important planning component under the state's Growth Management Act. For cities to compete for transportation funding grants from Federal and State sources, most granting agencies require that projects be included in the TIP. The Transportation Improvement Program may be revised at any time during the year, after a Public Hearing, by a majority of the Council. How is the 2013-2018 TIP different from previous years? Most grants now require that a project be included in the currently adopted TIP. Therefore the 2013-2018 TIP includes the eight projects the City has submitted to granting agencies so far this year. In response to a multi-year economic downturn which has reduced local revenues available for transportation improvements and the realization that fewer Federal and State grants will become available for local transportation projects in the near six-year timeframe, the current TIP includes only those projects for which the City already has some funding committed, those projects it hopes to start within six years or those for which the City anticipates seeking grants in the coming year. Other identified needs of the transportation network will be deferred until a dedicated funding source for transportation improvements can be identified. Project Project Name Number Project Location and Extent 1. Southeast 256th Street Widening, Phase II SR 516 (Kent Kangley) to 116th Avenue Southeast 2. Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements 104`h Avenue SE to 124`h Avenue SE 3. South 228th Street/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Grade separation crossing at Union Pacific Railroad 4. 72°d Avenue South Extension South 200`h Street to South 196h Street 5. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements - Horizon Horizon Elementary School, 27641 144`h Avenue SE 6. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements—Meridian Meridian Elementary School, 25621 140`h Avenue SE 7. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements—Meadow Ridge Meadow Ridge Elementary School, 277101Oe Avenue SE 8. Kent Regional Trails Connector Multi-Use Trail Green River Trail to Interurban Trail at S 21 e St 9. James Street Bicycle Lanes Interurban Trail to Washington Avenue 10. South 224th Street Extension 84`h Avenue South to 104`h Avenue Southeast (Benson Road) (SR 515) 11. Central Avenue South Improvement Project Green River Bridge to East Willis Street(SR 516) 12. SE 208" Street& 108th Avenue SE Intersection Improvements Intersection Operations Enhancements 13. Willis Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection Operations Enhancements 14. 108th Avenue Southeast Extension Southeast Kent Kangley Road(SR 516) to Southeast 256 h Street 15. Military Road South at Reith Road Intersection Improvement 16. Smith Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 17. S 212a' Street and 72°d Avenue South Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 18. SE 240a' Street and 104a' Avenue SE (SR 515 Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 19. Military Road South Widening South 277 h Street to Kent-DesMoines Road (SR 516) 20. 132Id Avenue Southeast Widening—Phase I KentKangleyRoad(SR 516) to Southeast 248h Street 21. 132°d Avenue Southeast Widening—Phase II Southeast 24e Street to Southeast 240`h Street 22. Kent Kangley Road and 132°d Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 23. South 260a' Street and Pacific Highway South (SR 99) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 24. SE 256a' Street and 104a' Avenue SE (SR 515/Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 25. Kent Kangley Road and 108a' Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 26. South 212a' Street and 84a' Avenue South Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 27. Meeker Street and Washington Avenue(SR 181) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 28. South 272Id Street and Military Road Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 29. Street Preservation Program Ongoing Citywide Program 30. Residential Traffic Calming Program Ongoing Citywide Program 31. Traffic Signal Management Program Ongoing Citywide Program 32. Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program 33. Comprehensive Plan Update Ongoing Citywide Program 34. Channelization Improvement Program Ongoing Citywide Program 35. Bicycle System Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program 36. Sidewalks, Sidewalk Repair and the Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Program Ongoing Citywide Program 37. Guardrail and Safety Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program 38. Community Based Circulating Shuttles Ongoing Citywide Program 39. Transit Now Service Partnership Program Ongoing Citywide Program 40. Railroad Quiet Zone for Downtown Urban Center Ongoing Citywide Program CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 41: Southeast 256u' Street Widening, Phase II SR 516(Kent Kangley Road) to 116 h Avenue Southeast DESCRIPTION: Construct a three lane roadway from SR 516 (Kent Kangley Road) to 116t' Avenue SE. This project includes bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. The project will include construction of full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage; landscaping; utilities; and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$1,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$1,500,000 Construction ............$4,500,000 TOTAL ............$7,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):City of Kent, Local Improvement District, TIB PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Southeast 256t' Street is a two-lane roadway with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks and a limited street light system. Despite the lack of suitable pedestrian facilities and extremely harsh weather in January 2012, over 650 pedestrians per day walked along this segment of roadway. During peak hours, the roadway cannot accommodate the traffic volumes due to the large number of vehicles blocking the roadway while waiting to turn left into driveways. The widening of Southeast 256t' Street also alleviates traffic on SR 516 (Kent Kangley Road) as the two roads serve east/west travel demand. The project will increase the capacity of this roadway by adding a center two-way left turn lane. This project provides a multi-modal connection between improvements west and east of this segment. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 42: Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements 104`h Avenue SE to 124`h Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: Add new mid-block pedestrian crossings of Kent Kangley Road with median refuge islands and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Restripe crosswalks and stop bars, upgrade pedestrian crossings to countdown message modules and Americans with Disability Accessible (ADA) standard pedestrian push buttons. There are a total of 8 intersections that will be improved by this project and proper signage will be updated along the entire project length. This project also includes education and enforcement elements. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$74,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$342,000 TOTAL ...............$416,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):Washington State Department of Transportation PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Kent Kangley Road (SR 516) is one of the most densely populated corridors in the City. The section from 104t' Ave SE to 124t' Ave SE is a congested, mixed land use, Principal Arterial that is a designated truck route currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) E during the PM Peak. The majority of housing along this portion of SR 516 is high density multifamily housing that generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic. This section of Kent Kangley is a high boarding area for transit and is also a popular destination for senior citizens due to the high concentration of shopping facilities, banks, medical offices and senior housing. The project area includes two of the highest collision incident locations in the City (104� Avenue SE at 256� Street and 116� Avenue SE at Kent Kangley Road). The majority of collisions reported in the project area from 2006-2008 occurred during the daylight hours with pedestrians over the age of 18. This project will improve safety through the construction of these engineering improvements combined with education and enforcement. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 43: South 228a' Street/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Grade Separation crossing at Union Pacific Railroad DESCRIPTION: Construct grade separation of the Union Pacific Railroad mainline tracks at South 228t' Street. The project will include the construction of a bridge; four-lane vehicle crossing; full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; street lighting; utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$1,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$2,500,000 Construction ..........$21,000,000 TOTAL ..........$25,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, Port of Seattle, FAST, FMSIB, LID, Union Pacific Railroad PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The project will lead to a seamless connection between major freight handlers and their primary destinations. This project will support freight moving through Kent to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, SeaTac Airport and the freeway system. Grade separating this arterial will increase roadway capacity, decrease congestion, enhance safety and improve freight mobility in this corridor and throughout the region. This project will provide regional connections for thousands of businesses, employers, and the 40 million square feet of warehouse/industrial space in the valley. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 44: 72nd Avenue South Extension South 20dh Street to South 196 h Street DESCRIPTION: This project completes a missing link by constructing a new three-lane roadway from South 200 Street to South 196d' Street. The project will include the crossing of Mill Creek and construction of full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$250,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$75,000 Construction ............$2,075,000 TOTAL ............$2,400,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): TIB, Regional Fire Authority, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Continued development in the northern Kent industrial area, and high levels of congestion along West Valley Highway between the South 180d' Street and South 196d' Street corridors, mandate additional north-south arterial capacity. This project provides some relief for South 180d' Street, South 196d' Street, and South 212d' Street intersections along West Valley Highway. It also provides improved access to the South 196d' Street corridor from industrial development along 72°d Avenue South by constructing the missing link between South 200d' Street and South 196d' Street. This roadway connection provides a direct link from the existing Fire Station on 72°d Avenue South to the 190 Street corridor, grade-separated over both the BNSF and UPRR mainline railroad tracks, dramatically improving emergency response times to a large area of the Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center and warehouse land uses. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 45: Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Horizon Elementary School 27641 144`h Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: Install a paved pathway on the east side of 144t' Avenue SE from SE 278t' Street to SE 276t' Place. Install a new midblock school crosswalk across 144t' Avenue SE on the south side of the school driveway. Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at the new crosswalk and install advance school crossing signs. This project also includes education and enforcement elements including the purchase of an additional Lidar Radar Unit for police enforcement. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$91,500 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$214,060 TOTAL ...............$305,560 FUNDING SOURCE(S): W SDOT, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools Program is to encourage more students to walk and bicycle to and from school rather than being driven by their parents. Through a combination of engineering enhancements to the built environment plus education efforts aimed at the students and their parents, it is hoped that families will increase the number of walking and biking trips they make to their local school. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 46: Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meridian Elementary School 25621 14dh Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of SE 256t' Street and 140t' Avenue SE and construct an asphalt pavement walkway with an extruded curb along SE 256t' Street from approximately 134t' Avenue SE to 140t' Avenue SE. The traffic signal includes a traffic surveillance camera and interconnect cable to connect this signal to the rest of the City's traffic control system. This project also includes education and enforcement elements including the purchase of an additional Lidar Radar Unit for the police enforcement. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$208,340 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$625,000 TOTAL ...............W3,340 FUNDING SOURCE(S): W SDOT, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Meridian Elementary School is located near the intersection of SE 256t' Street and 140t' Avenue SE. The school provides adult crossing guards to help students cross SE 256t' Street. The level of development in the area has increased to the point that local traffic in the neighborhood and in the communities to the east of the school has become especially heavy at the afternoon bell times. A full traffic signal would assist the crossing guards, the school children, the parents and teachers arriving/leaving the school and all the local motorists to maneuver in an orderly way during times of heavy conflict. Currently students must walk or bike along a wide shoulder on SE 256t' Street. This project would provide an asphalt walking path which would be separated from the roadway by a raised curb providing clearly delineated locations for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 47: Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meadow Ridge Elementary School 2771010e Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: Install a 6 foot concrete sidewalk with curb and gutter along the west side of 108t' Avenue SE from SE 273`d Street to SE 272°1 Street. Install a 6 foot concrete sidewalk with curb and gutter along the south side of SE 272°d Street from 108,' Avenue SE to 105t' Avenue SE. This project will install a new crosswalk crossing 108t' Avenue SE with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and appropriate signage on the north side of the onramp to the westbound 277t' Street Corridor. This project also includes education and enforcement elements including the purchase of an additional Lidar Radar Unit for police enforcement. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$175,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$436,120 TOTAL ...............$611,120 FUNDING SOURCE(S): W SDOT, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Few students currently walk or bicycle to Meadow Ridge Elementary School. The Kent School District provides bus transportation for all students living west of 108t' Avenue South and for students living north of the school. This project will make the pedestrian environment much more friendly for all users and make it an inviting alternative for parents and students to choose. The City of Kent has a number of programs that encourage people of all ages to live a more active lifestyle and makes it a City priority to provide attractive walking and bicycling facilities. Once these additional sidewalk facilities are built and the new crosswalk across 108t' Avenue SE with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons is installed, it is anticipated that many more families will be encouraged to walk their children to Meadow Ridge rather than drive them to school. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 48: Kent Regional Trails Connector Puget Power Trail at 64`h Avenue South to Interurban Trail at 72"d Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Construct 4,400 foot multi-use trail connecting the Green River and Interurban Regional Trails at a point approximately mid-way between the South 212d' Street and South 228d' Street Corridors at about South 218d' Street in the heart of the Kent Valley. This 12-foot wide multi-use trail for non-motorized users will include trail lighting to enhance visibility and encourage year round usage. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and marked crosswalks will be installed where the new trail crosses midblock at 64d' Avenue South and 72°d Avenue South. A traffic signal for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing mid-block will be installed on 68d' Avenue South (aka West Valley Highway/SR 181). The signal will include a camera for performance monitoring. The project will install a steel pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Mill Creek between 72°d Avenue South and the Interurban Trail. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$265,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$860,000 TOTAL ............$1,125,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): CMAQ, WSDOT, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: One of the highest priority projects in the City's Non-Motorized Plan and Transportation Master Plan, this new trail would fill a missing east/west link in the City's and the region's bicycle network. It would connect two of the most heavily used regional trails to each other and provide access for tens of thousands of people to a concentrated employment center. It would provide alternative mode access to The Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center's 1,800 employers, to recreational activities along the Green River and the Green River Natural Resources Area and provide additional safety for all users crossing three major arterial streets in an area with a heavy mix of truck traffic. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 49: James Street Bicycle Lanes Interurban Trail to Washington Avenue (SR 181) and 800 feet east of the Green River Trail DESCRIPTION: Install bike lanes along James Street from the Interurban Trail to Washington Avenue South (SR 181). This project will also eliminate the gap of approximately 800 feet at the west end of James Street where James Street intersects with the Green River Trail. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$150,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ............$1,225,000 TOTAL ............$1,375,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The proposed bicycle lanes would complete a missing bicycle link between the Green River Trail and the Kent Regional Growth Center. This project would provide the first dedicated bicycle lanes to penetrate what had here-to-for been a barrier to east/west bicycle travel, State Route 167. Bike lanes currently extend easterly from this point providing connections to the King County Regional Justice Center, Kent Station (an 18-acre shopping and entertainment complex), and the Kent Transit Center. Nearby land uses include historic downtown Kent, City Hall and the Kent City Center project scheduled to add 164 urban-style apartments to the downtown core starting in 2013. Filling in the missing links of this bicycle corridor is expected to encourage more people to utilize bicycling for more of their trips. The anticipated mode shift from single-occupant vehicle to bicycle will allow Kent to meet growth management goals while continuing to comply with its adopted level of service standards and federal clean air standards. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 410: South 224u' Street Extension 84`h Avenue South to 104`h Avenue Southeast (Benson Rd) (SR 515) DESCRIPTION: Construct a three-lane road from 84t' Avenue South to 104t' Avenue Southeast (Benson Road) (SR 515), including new bridges over SR 167 and Garrison Creek. The project will include the construction of full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage; landscaping; utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$3,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$4,000,000 Construction ..........$22,000,000 TOTAL ..........$29,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing roadway system cannot accommodate the current or forecast east- west traffic volumes between Kent's East Hill and the Green River Valley floor. In order to meet transportation concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act, additional east-west vehicle capacity is required. Intersections along South 208ffi/212ffi Street and James/Southeast 240ffi Streets are also at or over capacity. It is not feasible to widen the James/Southeast 240t' Street and South 208ffi/212ffi Street `corridors' enough to accommodate forecast traffic volumes without additional east-west capacity because of existing development and topographic constraints. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 PROJECT 411: Central Avenue South Improvements Green River Bridge to East Willis Street(SR 516) DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add service life to the roadway, between the Green River Bridge and East Willis Street (SR 516). This project will include the removal and replacement of failing pavement sections and a full-width asphalt concrete overlay of the entire roadway. Also included in this project is the replacement of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street trees, as well as minor storm drainage improvements. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$500,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ............$4,000,000 TOTAL ............$4,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing pavement along this section of Central Avenue South is exhibiting signs of distress, as demonstrated by "alligatoring", longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and gutters. The service life of this roadway has been reached, necessitating reconstruction of the roadway. The sidewalk system is sub-standard in many locations and in need of replacement. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2014 PROJECT 412: SE 208th Street and 108th Avenue SE (SR 515/Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add dual southbound left storage lane on 108t' Avenue SE, widen the receiving lane on SE 208t' St, and modify the signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$60,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$75,000 Construction ...............$575,000 TOTAL ...............$710,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: State Route 515, also known as The Benson Highway or 108t' Avenue SE, is the primary north south route on the East Hill and serves as a major transit route. With four to five lanes in its current configuration, this roadway has been widened to its practical limits. Improvements to intersections along the corridor can have positive effects on corridor congestion and improve efficiency. This project would add queuing capacity for the southbound left turn movement while continuing to provide two lanes of through travel. It could reduce the intersection delay in the afternoon peak period by more than 600 vehicles per hour. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2014 PROJECT 413: Willis Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvements DESCRIPTION: Improve the intersection of Willis Street and Central Avenue to provide a right turn lane from southbound on Central Avenue to westbound Willis Street. Project includes sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement and improvements to traffic signal system. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$40,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$150,000 Construction ...............$260,000 TOTAL ...............$450,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, Developer Mitigation PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is a traffic mitigation requirement for additional trips generated by the Kent Station Development. The City of Kent will be implementing this project that is required of the developer. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2015 PROJECT 414: 108u' Avenue Southeast Extension Southeast Kent Kangley Road(SR 516) to Southeast 256h Street DESCRIPTION: Construct a new three lane roadway from Southeast Kent Kangley Road (SR 516) to Southeast 256t' Street including rebuilding the traffic signals at the intersection of Southeast Kent Kangley Road and 108t' Avenue Southeast and installing a new traffic signal at the intersection of Southeast 256t' Street and 109t' Avenue Southeast. The project includes right turn lanes northbound on 109t' at Southeast 256t' Street and Southbound on 109t' at Kent Kangley Road. The project will also include construction of full width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; Sharrows; street lighting; storm drainage; landscaping; utilities and appurtenances. As part of this project, the eastbound left-turn lane from Kent Kangley Road to Southeast 256t' Street will be eliminated. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$200,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$2,000,000 Construction ............$1,750,000 TOTAL ............$3,950,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will relieve congestion at the Y intersection of 104t' Avenue Southeast (Benson Highway) (SR 515)/Kent Kangley Road (SR 516)/Southeast 256t' Street by improving the traffic flow along SR 516. It will eliminate the left turn pocket from SR 516 to Southeast 256t' Street and redirect that traffic along SR 516 to 108t' Avenue Southeast. There will be a new left turn pocket constructed for motorists wishing to travel north on 108t' Avenue Southeast to Southeast 256t' Street. By moving these left turning movements further to the east, away from the congested Y intersection, all directions of traffic will be able to flow more efficiently. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2015 PROJECT 415: Military Road South at Reith Road Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Widen all approaches of Military Road South at Reith Road intersection to provide exclusive left turn lanes for each approach, and exclusive right turn lanes for northbound and southbound traffic on Military Road South and westbound traffic on Reith Road. Replace the existing traffic signal. The project will include the construction of full width paving, paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. The intersection will accommodate the future bicycle lanes which are planned for both Military Road South and Reith Road. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$180,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$200,000 Construction ............$1,800,000 TOTAL ............$2,180,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):TIB, City of Kent, Development Mitigation Funds PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development on the Kent West Hill coupled with the growth in the Puget Sound area and the regularly occurring congestion along both Pacific Highway South and Interstate 5 results in significant congestion at this intersection in the morning and evening peak hours. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2017 PROJECT 416: Smith Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Revise southbound and northbound turn lane assignment. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$100,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$400,000 Construction ...............$900,000 TOTAL ............$1,400,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The southbound vehicle movement is heaviest in the afternoon peak period. The predominant vehicle flow in the peak period is southbound on Central Avenue and then left on Smith Street to proceed eastbound up the hill. This revision in lane configuration, queue capacity, and turning capacity reduces congestion. This project could reduce the intersection delay in the afternoon peak period from 167 seconds per vehicle to 111 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2017 PROJECT 417: S 212u' Street and 72Id Avenue South Intersection Improvementlntersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add southbound dual left turn lanes and restripe northbound lane configuration. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$60,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$125,000 Construction ...............$505,000 TOTAL ...............$690,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Kent is an important freight distribution center in the Puget Sound Region. The efficient movement of freight, through and within the City is critical to Kent's economic health. With the completion of the final road segment of 72°d Avenue South between South 196t' Street and South 200t' Street, 72°d Avenue South becomes a key freight corridor and this intersection of two important freight corridors (72° Ave S and S 212t' Street) takes on a highly significant role in relieving the congestion often found on West Valley Highway at peak periods. This improvement reduces future southbound vehicle queuing and congestion and has the potential to improve intersection delay from 193 seconds per vehicle to 63 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 418: SE 240a' Street and 104a' Avenue SE (SR 515/Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add dual northbound and southbound left turn lanes. Add northbound and southbound right turn pockets. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$120,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$275,000 Construction ............$1,205,000 TOTAL ............$1,600,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 104th Avenue SE (SR 515, also known as The Benson Highway), is the primary north south route on the East Hill and serves as a major transit route. With four to five lanes in its current configuration, this roadway has been widened to its practical limits. Improvements to intersections along the corridor can have positive effects on corridor congestion and improve efficiency. This project would add queuing capacity for both the northbound and southbound left turn movements while continuing to provide two lanes of through travel. It could reduce the intersection delay in the afternoon peak period from an average 110 seconds per vehicle to about 56 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 419: Military Road South Widening South 272"d Street to Kent-Des Moines Road(SR 516) DESCRIPTION: This project will widen Military Road from South 272°d Street to Kent-Des Moines Road adding a center left-turn lane, bicycle lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Also included is the construction of storm drainage improvement and illumination system improvements. (Note: The Reith Road intersection is a separate project and is not included in this project.) PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$2,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$1,000,000 Construction ..........$15,500,000 TOTAL ..........$18,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):City of Kent, Development Mitigation Funds, TIB PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Military Road South has reached a point where a separate center two-way left turn lane is required. During peak traffic flow hours, the roadway cannot accommodate the traffic volumes due to the large number of vehicles blocking the roadway waiting to make left turns. Most sections of Military Road are lacking sidewalks and an adequate storm drainage system. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 420: 132Id Avenue Southeast Widening—Phase I KentKangleyRoad(SR 516) to Southeast 248h Street DESCRIPTION: Widen 132°d Avenue Southeast to provide a five lane roadway, including four general purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a facility for bicycle travel; modifying the existing traffic signal systems at the intersections of Kent Kangley Road and Southeast 256d' Street. The project will include the construction of full-width paving; bicycle lanes; concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage; utilities; and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$3,800,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$3,100,000 Construction ..........$18,200,000 TOTAL ..........$25,100,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of 132°d Avenue has already reached the point whereby a consistent five land roadway section is needed to provide efficient left-turn access into adjoining properties and accommodate forecast traffic volumes. Existing traffic volumes that exceed 20,000 ADT (near the intersection of 132°d Avenue southeast and Kent Kangley Road) necessitate a five lane section. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities will provide multimodal access to adjacent land uses. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 421: 132nd Avenue Southeast Widening—Phase II Southeast 24e Street to Southeast 24dh Street DESCRIPTION: Widen 132°d Avenue Southeast to provide a five lane roadway, including four general purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a bicycle facility; modifying the existing traffic signal system at the intersection of Southeast 240d' Street. The project will include the construction of full-width paving; bicycle lanes; concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage; utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$750,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$1,500,000 Construction ............$4,750,000 TOTAL ............$7,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of 132°d Avenue has already reached the point whereby a consistent five lane roadway section is needed to provide efficient left-turn access to adjoining properties and accommodate forecast traffic volumes. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities will provide multimodal access to adjacent land uses. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 422: Kent Kangley Road and 132nd Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$85,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$175,000 Construction ...............$940,000 TOTAL ............$1,200,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Kent Kangley Road is a Principal Arterial with over 32,000 daily vehicle trips. 132°d Avenue SE is a Minor Arterial with over 14,000 daily vehicle trips. The demand on both roads is anticipated to grow in the next decade as growth in households and jobs on Kent's East Hill continues to develop. Over the next 20 years the growth of traffic on 132°d Avenue is projected to grow at an average rate of 0.8% per year. This means the demand on the roadway would be 20% higher by 2030. The intersection of these two key roadways becomes a chokepoint for both local and regional commuters. This improvement reduces existing and future southbound congestion. It has the potential to reduce the intersection delay from 109 seconds per vehicle to 44 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 423: South 260u' Street and Pacific Highway South (SR 99) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add westbound dual left turn lanes. Add eastbound right turn pocket. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$100,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$250,000 Construction ...............$900,000 TOTAL ............$1,250,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: S 260t' Street provides one of the few direct connections between the Pacific Highway corridor and the downtown City Core. South 260th is a multimodal corridor which accommodates vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and bus traffic. As the Midway area redevelops into a more commercial/residential mixed-use zone, the traffic connections to the Military Road neighborhood and connections to the valley retail and civic center need to be updated to highest efficiency. This intersection improvement reduces future westbound vehicle queuing and congestion of over 500 vehicles per hour and improves the intersection delay from 180 seconds per vehicle (3 minutes) to approximately 87 seconds per vehicle in the PM Peak Period. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 424: SE 256a' Street and 104a' Avenue SE (SR 515/Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add northbound right turn lane. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$80,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$150,000 Construction ...............$220,000 TOTAL ...............$450,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: At the confluence of two state highways (SR 516 and SR 515) this intersection experiences congestion during most times of the day. Approximately 33,000 daily vehicle trips are traveling east/west on SR 516 (Kent Kangley) where it meets SE 256t' Street and 104 Avenue SE at what is commonly known as the Kent Kangley "Y" To help facilitate the northbound movement at this intersection, this project will provide a dedicated right turn lane for traffic flowing eastbound. This project also provides some signal improvements (upgrades) to allow changes to the signal timing and phasing at this intersection. The combined improvements are estimated to reduce delay on the northbound segment from 156 seconds per vehicle to 86 seconds per vehicle in the peak period. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 425: Kent Kangley Road and 10e Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add eastbound and westbound dual left turn lanes. Add eastbound right turn pocket. Change northbound right turn phasing. Complete traffic signal replacement. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$80,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$75,000 Construction ............$1,045,000 TOTAL ............$1,200,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is needed to support the capital improvement project adding a new 108t' Street or 109t' Street connection between Kent Kangley Road and SE 256t' Street. Another study looked at various alternatives to this intersection and road addition. If the 108 /l09'' project goes forward, it would then set up the need for further adjustments to the operations on Kent Kangley Road. This project addresses those impacts. This project would keep the delay at this intersection at 92 seconds per vehicle or less which is within the City's adopted Level of Service Standard, LOS E. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 426: South 212u' Street and 84th Avenue South Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Extend eastbound left turn lane and add northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$130,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$420,000 Construction ............$1,250,000 TOTAL ............$1,800,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This intersection experiences congestion during most times of the day. Both roads are Principal Arterials and each carries over 25,000 vehicle trips per day. The demand on both of these roads is expected to grow in the next decade as growth in both freight movement and residential development in Kent's valley continues to develop. This project also provides some signal improvements (upgrades)to allow changes to the signal timing and phasing of this intersection. The improvements would reduce congestion because of heavy demand for left turn movements. It is anticipated that these improvements could reduce the intersection delay to as little as 47 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 427: Meeker Street and Washington Avenue Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add eastbound and westbound right turn pockets. Extend left turn storage pockets. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$60,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$150,000 Construction ...............$550,000 TOTAL ...............$760,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This is one of the busiest intersections in the City. Washington Avenue (SR 181) is a Principal Arterial and Meeker Street is a Minor Arterial. They each carry about 25,000 vehicle trips per day at this location. Much of the vehicle volume on Washington Avenue is truck trips headed for the regional highways and the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. At the same time, internal automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic between the west side of Kent and the Downtown City Center needs to maneuver through this busy intersection. These improvements will have the greatest effect on improving the efficiency of that east/west movement. It is anticipated that these improvements could reduce the intersection delay to as little as 57 seconds per vehicle. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2018 PROJECT 428: South 272Id Street and Military Road Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancements DESCRIPTION: Add a southbound through lane at the intersection. Modify signal phasing. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$20,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$240,000 TOTAL ...............$260,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The increased development on the Kent West Hill combined with the lack of alternative north/south arterials places significant local congestion on Military Road. On those occasions when the State Highway System (I-5 and/or State Route 99, aka Pacific Highway South) breaks down, Military Road becomes the alternative of choice for regional diversion traffic. This project reduces existing and future southbound congestion. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 429: Street Preservation Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Projects that maintain the existing transportation system by overlaying, rehabilitating, and reconstructing the existing asphalt and concrete streets throughout the City. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$1,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ..........$23,700,000 TOTAL ..........$25,200,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The City assessed the condition of its street network in 2008. It was found that many of the streets exhibit deficiencies that reflect they are beyond their expected performance life and in need of a maintenance or rehabilitation overlay, or some amount of reconstruction. Moreover, historically, the amount of pavement resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction monies the City has budgeted each year has been insufficient to address the deficiencies of its street network. Insufficient budgets to perform this necessary work results in more expensive maintenance and rehabilitation options. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 430: Residential Traffic Calming Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: This project will develop and implement residential traffic calming throughout the City on a priority basis as funding allows. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$750,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ............$1,050,000 TOTAL ............$1,800,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The program was originally established in 1999 to address traffic concerns on residential streets. The City Council recently adopted a revised Traffic Calming Program in order to make informed, systematic decisions about actions to correct those concerns. There has been a substantial increase in requests to the City for installation of physical devices within the last couple of years that resulted in a significant increase in the number of speed and volume studies and required numerous public meetings. This program will allow for adequate traffic studies to keep up with the increased demand, support staff resources to perform the studies and work with residents toward resolving traffic concerns, and fund the purchase, installation and construction of physical devices for residential traffic calming. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 431: Traffic Signal Management Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: This program will analyze intersections for potential installation of traffic signals or other traffic control to insure safe and efficient use of the existing and planned transportation network. Analysis of turn movements and collision history will be used to prioritize new traffic signal installations. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$600,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ............$3,600,000 TOTAL ............$4,200,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Historically,the City justifies the need for two new traffic signals per year to meet safety and mobility needs. This program budgets for projects needed to meet the increasing demand for signalized intersection control and the constant need for traffic counts to monitor vehicle volumes and behavior. It also supports the replacement of old, outdated traffic signal equipment at currently signalized intersections. The priorities for traffic signals will be set by transportation system signal warrant studies which include studies of volumes, collision history, pedestrian mobility needs, and roadway geometry. This program also helps the City maintain level of service standards necessary to maintain concurrency as required by the Growth Management Act. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 432: Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Improve miscellaneous intersections within the City to accommodate future traffic volumes. Provides for improvements to the operational efficiency of the roadway system including rechannelization, signing, signal coordination programs, transit signal priority, Intelligent Transportation Systems, signal upgrades such as protective/permissive phasing and LED signal indications upgrades. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$45,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$255,000 TOTAL ...............$300,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The Transportation Master Plan identified several intersections that will need to be improved to accommodate future traffic volumes. These intersections are spread throughout the City and are not included as separate projects within this 6-Year TIP. Increasing the capacity and efficiency of the existing roadway system through operational improvements is a very cost effective element of the transportation program. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 433: Comprehensive Plan Update Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: This project consists of an update of the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Master Plan including near-term and long range planning of the City's transportation system needs. Project costs include consultant contracts for transportation planning, concurrency management, public involvement, travel demand and traffic operations modeling and analysis of potential financing strategies to construct, operate and maintain the City's transportation network. The project includes staff resources, hardware and software to analyze, manage and monitor the transportation network. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$450,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ..........................$0 TOTAL ...............$450,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The City's 2008 Transportation Master Plan identified the City's transportation system needs out to the year 2030 but was based on the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan. This project will support the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update by incorporating the City's updated household and jobs forecasts into future transportation demand model forecast scenarios and develop possible transportation alternatives to accommodate the new growth projections. The City must be in compliance with all state, county and regional policies in order to be eligible to apply for competitive grants. The City endeavors to maximize transportation efficiency, investigate methods of measuring concurrency that incorporate all modes of travel, better reflects the ways our community is changing, engages the community in discussions about future transportation investments, and investigates various ways of funding our future transportation needs. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 434: Channelization (Street Markings) Improvement Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Provide street marking projects throughout the City to separate and regulate conflicting movements, define paths of travel, and facilitate safe and orderly movement on City Streets. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$40,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$494,000 TOTAL ...............$534,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This ongoing program maintains and updates the channelization throughout the City. The City has 1,648,863 linear feet (LF) of channelization striping, 445,300 raised pavement markings, 22,012 LF of C curb and 7,179 LF of painted C curb. Channelization helps to limit conflict points and directs motorists through areas of complexity. These markings are also used to delineate left turn storage queue areas and deceleration areas for right turning vehicles. This project preserves the capacity and efficiency of the existing roadway system. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 435: Bicycle System Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous improvements to the city's bicycle routes as identified in the Nonmotorized Chapter (Chapter 6) of the adopted Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Bicycle lanes are part of individual street improvement projects and each of those projects would be itemized individually. The costs of those bike lanes added to TMP Street projects are estimated at approximately $40,000,000 and are not reflected here. This project is for shared lane striping and signing, and for the extension of the shared- use path network. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$108,500 Right of Way Acquisition.................$72,500 Construction ...............$723,500 TOTAL ...............$904,500 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The 2008 Transportation Master Plan Nonmotorized System Study proposed a network of shared lane routes on transportation corridors throughout the city to help connect the bicycle system. Lane markings and sign postings can inform motorists and cyclists of those corridors best suited for significant bike use. These shared-lane facilities can provide critical linkages to major cycling activity centers and connections to the shared use path systems. This project can help achieve the City's goals for improving mobility, reducing vehicle trips, increasing physical exercise, and improving transportation connectedness. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 436: Sidewalks, Sidewalk Repair and the Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Systematically construct new sidewalks as identified in the Transportation Master Plan as the Highest/High Priorities throughout the City. Reconstruct and repair existing sidewalks and curb ramps and install new truncated domes and hard-surfaced sidewalks to implement the requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) consistent with the findings of the Nonmotorized Chapter (Chapter 6) of the 2008 Transportation Master Plan. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...............$500,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$250,000 Construction ............$2,250,000 TOTAL ............$3,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title II requires that a public entity must evaluate its services, programs, policies, and practices to determine whether they are in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. The ADA requires that an ADA Transition Plan be prepared to describe any structural or physical changes required to make programs accessible. The City has conducted a self-evaluation and prepared a Transition Plan including a prioritized list of projects to bring itself into compliance with the Federal ADA regulations. This program begins working on that list of projects to construct and repair the City's sidewalk and street/sidewalk transition zones for accessibility for all users and begins to address the pedestrian improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan. This project can help achieve the City's goals for improving mobility, reducing vehicle trips, increasing physical activity, and improving transportation connectedness. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 437: Guardrail and Safety Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous guardrail improvements each year to enhance motorist safety. Candidate projects include Frager Road, SE 240d'/148d' Avenue Southeast hillside, Lake Fenwick Road north or S 272°d Street, and 100d' Avenue Southeast. Upgrade existing guardrail end-treatments as mandated by State and Federal regulations. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .................$20,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$175,000 TOTAL ...............$195,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, HES PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with Federal and State regulations and the requirement to eliminate potentially hazardous roadway conditions. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 438: Community Based Circulating Shuttles Ongoing Citywide Programs DESCRIPTION: Continue to provide enhanced transit service to meet the needs of the community through the use of fixed-route shuttle service, with demand-responsive routing capabilities. Routes 914/916 serve the Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent City Hall, Green River Community College's Kent campus, and local shopping and medical facilities. The Route 918 shuttle connects the City's manufacturing/industrial center with the regional bus and commuter train services at the Kent Transit Center. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ..........................$0 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ...............$252,000 TOTAL ...............$252,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, CMAQ, King County, ITS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Routes 914/916 provide mobility and independence to many of the city's seniors and reduce the need for expensive ACCESS service for many wheelchair-lift service trips. Community circulating shuttles encourage the participation of all ages, all economic groups, all physical abilities, and virtually all of our community in everyday civic life without the isolation and pollution of the automobile for every trip. Commuter shuttles enhance the regional transit/train service by providing the vital link from home or work to the Transit Center, encouraging people to travel without their personal vehicles —thus avoiding the cold-start impacts to air quality and reducing congestion on local streets. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 439: Transit Now Service Partnership Program Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Transit Now is a voter-approved King County Metro Transit program which provides incentives for local jurisdictions to improve local transit operations by entering into a direct financial partnership with Metro for providing additional service. Metro will match a partner's contribution on a 2:1 basis. Transit Now requires a minimum contribution from the partner of$100,000 per year for five (5) years to add a new route. Kent has entered into partnership with Metro to provide new service to The Lakes and Riverview neighborhoods and to provide the missing link between the Kent Transit Center and major worksites in the valley industrial area PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$1,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ..........................$0 TOTAL ............$1,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):City of Kent, King County, Commute Trip Reduction Program (CTR) Employers PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Transit service (bus and train) between Kent and downtown Seattle is generally competitive with automobile driving during the commute hours. Transit service within Kent and between Kent and its neighboring jurisdictions has serious deficiencies. Due to low frequency, transit is simply not a viable option for travelers who need to make a trip during the midday, commuters working non-traditional shifts, and peak hour commuters who are concerned that there is no safety net service should they need to travel during the midday. These partnership proposals allow us to buy our way into providing additional service to our community that we would not otherwise be able to obtain. CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2013 -2018 PROJECT 440: Railroad Quiet Zone for Downtown Urban Center Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Establishment of a railroad quiet zone for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks through the City of Kent. The grade crossings to be included in the quiet zone on the BNSF railroad mainline are: S 259t' Street, Willis Street, Titus Street, Gowe Street, Meeker Street, Smith Street, James Street, and S 212t' Street. The grade crossings included in the quiet zone for the UPRR mainline tracks are: Willis Street (SR 516), W Smith Street, W Meeker Street, W James Street, S 228t' Street, and S 212t' Street. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ............$3,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition..........................$0 Construction ..........................$0 TOTAL ............$3,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S):City of Kent, Federal Rail Administration, FHWA PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Locomotive engineers begin sounding the train-mounted horn approximately '/4 mile from the intersection of a highway/railroad crossing. This warning device is an effective deterrent to accidents at grade crossings but exposes the local community to significant levels of noise that often deprecates the quality of life for those living closest to the railroad facilities. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2013 — 2018 40 • 000 KENT WASH IN G T O N For more information or additional copies of this document contact: Steve Mullen, Transportation Engineering Manager City of Kent, Public Works, Engineering 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 (253) 856-5585 smullen@kentwa.gov #REF! ESTIMAT DESCRIPTION COSTS ED START DATE 1 2013 Southeast 256th Street Widening, Phase II $7,000,000 2 2013 Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements $416,000 3 2013 South 228th Street/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation $25,000,000 4 2013 72nd Avenue South Extension $2,400,000 5 2013 Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Horizon Elementary School $305,560 6 2013 Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meridian Elementary School $833,340 7 2013 Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meadow Ridge Elementary $611,120 School 8 2013 Kent Regional Trails Connector $1,125,000 9 2013 James Street Bicycle Lanes $1,375,000 10 2013 South 224th Street Extension $29,000,000 11 2013 Central Avenue South Improvement(Green River Bridge to Willis $4,500,000 Street) 12 2014 SE 208th Street& 108th Avenue Intersection Improvement $710,000 13 2014 Willis Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvements $450,000 14 2015 108th Ave Southeast Extension $3,950,000 15 2015 Military Road South at Reith Road $2,180,000 16 2017 Smith and Central Avenue Intersection Improvement $1,400,000 17 2017 S 212th Street and 72nd Avenue South Intersection Improvement $690,000 18 2018 SE 240th St and 104th Ave SE Intersection Improvement $1,600,000 19 2018 Military Road South Widening $18,500,000 20 2018 132nd Avenue Southeast Widening, Phase I (Kent Kangley to SE 248th $25,100,000 St) 21 2018 132nd Avenue Southeast Widening, Phase II (SE 248th St to SE 240th $7,000,000 St) 22 2018 Kent Kangley Road &132nd Avenue SE Intersection Improvements $1,200,000 23 2018 South 260th Street& Pacific Highway South Intersection $1,250,000 Improvements 24 2018 SE 256th Street& 104th Avenue SE Intersection Improvements $450,000 25 2018 Kent Kangley Road &108th Avenue SE Intersection Improvements $1,200,000 26 2018 South 212th Street/84th Avenue S Intersection Improvements $1,800,000 27 2018 Meeker Street and Washington Avenue Intersection Improvements $760,000 28 2018 South 272nd Street and Military Road South Intersection $260,000 Improvements ONGOING CITYWIDE PROGRAMS: 29 2013- Street Preservation $25,200,000 2018 30 2013- Residential Traffic Calming Program $1,800,000 2018 31 2013- Traffic Signal Management Program $4,200,000 2018 32 2013- Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements $300,000 2018 33 2013- Comprehensive Plan Update $450,000 2018 34 2013- Channelization $534,000 2018 35 2013- Bicycle System Improvements $904,500 2018 36 2013- Sidewalks, Sidewalk Repair and Americans with Disabilities Act $3,000,000 2018 Compliance Program 37 2013- Guardrail and Safety Improvements $195,000 2018 38 2013- Community Based Circulating Shuttles $252,000 2018 39 2013- Transit Now Service Partnership Agreements $1,000,000 2018 40 2013- Quiet Zone for Downtown Urban Center $3,500,000 2018 Total: $182,401,520 PUBLIC COMMENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 7A - 7B CONSENT CALENDAR 7. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L. Discussion Action 7A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of June 5, 2012, and Council Retreat minutes of June 1, 2012. 7B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through May 15 and paid on May 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on June 5, 2012. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/15/12 Wire Transfers 5056-5077 $1,879,812.59 5/15/12 Regular Checks 663183-663603 1,568,613.63 Void Checks 663433 (681.16) 5/15/12 Use Tax Payable 5,461.65 $3,453,206.71 Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 1 through May 15 and paid on May 20, 2012: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/20/12 Checks 327635-327846 $ 119,895.61 5/20/12 Advices 298667-299311 1,205,353.04 $1,325,248.65 Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 16 through May 31 and paid on June 5, 2012: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/5/12 Checks 327847-328046 $ 120,986.87 6/5/12 Advices 299312-299958 1,232,974.09 $1,353,960.96 y RCN i Kent City Council Meeting June 5, 2012 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Boyce, Higgins, Perry, Ralph, Ranniger, and Thomas. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) No changes were made. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke noted that the public hearing on medical marijuana has already been held, but that limited comments will be taken on it under the Public Comment section of the agenda. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke introduced the Honorable Lt. Gen. Alfred Ladu Gore, Minister of Environment from the new Republic of South Sudan, who expressed appreciation for the hospitality he's been shown, as well as for the help his country has received. B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke announced the International Festival taking place on June 16, and noted that the Farmers Market is now open. Council member Ralph announced the winner of the "So You Think Kent Has Talent" contest, and described the Bicycle Tour held recently. C. State of the County Message. (CFN-198) King County Council member Reagan Dunn gave an update on County issues, including the budget, changes to Metro Transit, anti-gang legislation, human trafficking, juvenile gun crimes, flood control, and a Juvenile Justice Center. D. Neighbors of West Hill Council Introduction. (CFN-1304) Neighborhood Program Coordinator Toni Azzola introduced members of the Neighbors of West Hill Council, noting that this is the 22nd neighborhood council in the city. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Annexation. (CFN-567) Heinz Strakeljahn, 13228 SE 231st Street, expressed opposition to annexation. B. Medical Marijuana. (CFN-1320) The following persons spoke in favor of passing the ban on medical marijuana collective gardens: Eric Munson, 24925 132nd Place SE, Kent, who said youth are not using marijuana for medical reasons, but to get high or to sell for profit, and Jim Schack, 24615 142nd Avenue SE, Kent, who said there are 90 dispensaries near Kent where qualified persons can obtain medical marijuana, which is sufficient. The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: Russell Hanscom, 9523 S. 237th Place, Tina Budell, 323 W. Cloudy St., Kent 1 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2012 Kari Boiter, 4224 S. 216th Place, Kent Koli Bolden, 27400 132nd Avenue SE, G-205, Kent A. J. West, 25432 163rd Place SE, Covington Toni Mills, 25000 180th Avenue S., Covington Charlotte Peery, 12315 SE 270th St., Kent Michael Enos, 11805 SE 255th St., Kent Emily Covington, 1210 30th St. SE, Auburn Rebecca Doyle, 609 Shattuck Avenue S., Renton Wade Schwartz, address on file John Worthington, 4500 SE 2nd PI., Renton Michael Ranetta, 21600 24th Avenue S., Des Moines Jan Hickley, 1919 Talbot Road S., Renton Steve Sarich, 2735 lst Avenue S., Seattle Lina Paulgen, 11321 SE 226 PI., Kent Reasons for their opposition included that marijuana is safer than opiates, that the proposed ordinance violates state law, that travel is difficult for some patients, that government should represent the people, and that marijuana provides positive results for patients. CONSENT CALENDAR Higgins moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. Thomas seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of May 15, 2012, were approved. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through April 30 and paid on April 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 15, 2012, was approved. Checks issued for vouchers were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/30/12 Wire Transfers 5037-5055 $1,298,237.07 4/30/12 Regular Checks 662753-663182 3,250,674.04 4/30/12 Use Tax Payable 291.37 $4,549,202.48 Checks issued for payroll for April 16 through April 30 and paid on May 4, 2012, were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/4/12 Checks 327422-327634 $ 162,281.53 5/4/12 Advices 298021-298666 1,214,832.45 $1,377,113.98 2 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2012 C. Downtown Strateaic Action Plan Update, Resolution. (CFN-377/462) Resolution No. 1857, declaring an emergency to pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the City of Kent 2005 Downtown Strategic Action Plan was adopted. D. Neighbors of West Hill Council, Resolution. (CFN-1304) Resolution No. 1858, which repeals Resolution No. 1781 and recognizes the Neighbors of West Hill Council neighborhood council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the city's Neighborhood Program, was adopted. E. Temporary Flood Protection Structure Extension Ordinance. (CFN-1318) Ordinance No. 4037 amending Ordinance No. 3996 to extend the waiver of certain permitting requirements for temporary structures constructed for flood protection purposes to January 1, 2013, was adopted. F. Demolition and Asbestos Abatement Contract. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement with Russ Lloyd Clearing & Demolition to demolish the house and out-buildings and complete asbestos abatement at 11220 SE 204th (Matinjussi Property) for a total of $28,416, plus WSST, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks Director. G. Burlinaton Northern Santa Fe Warnina Sian Installation Aareement. (CFN-113) The Mayor was authorized to execute a Warning Sign Installation Agreement with BNSF Railway, for the installation and maintenance of LED-enhanced "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" signs, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. H. Linda Heights Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Replacement Consultant Agreement. (CFN-1214) The Mayor was authorized to sign a consultant services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering design services for the Linda Heights Sanitary Sewer Pump Station replacement, in an amount not to exceed $138,600, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. I. Macaulay & Associates Consultant Agreement, LID 363. (CFN-1308) The Mayor was authorized to sign the consultant services agreement with Macaulay & Associates, Inc. to provide assessment review services for Local Improvement District 363, in an amount not to exceed $141,600, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. J. 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. (CFN-164) June 19, 2012, was set as the Public Hearing date to consider the Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. OTHER BUSINESS A. Medical Marijuana Ordinance. (CFN-1320) On January 3, 2012, the Council voted against an ordinance which would allow collective gardens in designated commercial and industrial zones. The Council also reenacted a moratorium regarding collective gardens or dispensaries for another six months. City Planner Katie Graves 3 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2012 noted that four public hearings have been held on this subject and stated that on May 14, 2012, the Economic and Community Development Committee recommended to the City Council on a 2-1 vote to prohibit medical cannabis collective gardens in all zoning districts. She added that the proposed ordinance reflects this recommendation. Boyce moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4036 prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens within specific zoning districts in the city of Kent. Thomas seconded. Boyce stated that after studying this, he feels it is not a city issue. He encouraged interested persons to put pressure on the state and federal governments. Ralph concurred and said medical marijuana should be regulated like any other medicine. Albertson opined that medical decisions should be made between individuals and their doctor, and said that changing laws begins at the local level. Perry said she feels reasonable regulations should be passed so that people can have access, and that a state-wide system is needed. Higgins said he is in favor of safe access and agreed that the law should be re-evaluated. He also said this vote is not the end, and encouraged those interested to contact the state. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to adopt Ordinance 4036 prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens then carried 4-3, with Boyce, Ralph, Ranniger and Thomas in favor and Albertson, Higgins and Perry opposed. B. Financial Policies Resolution. (CFN-186/198) The City Council has created and implemented a new strategic plan which sets forth tasks, objectives and goals intended to achieve the Council's vision that Kent become "a safe, connected, and beautiful city, richly diverse with culturally vibrant urban centers". Finance Director Nachlinger commended Council member Perry, who drafted a new set of financial, accounting and budgetary policies intended to offer short- and long- term guidance to city staff as the city moves toward accomplishing the goals established in the strategic plan. He noted that the policies have been discussed and amended in council workshop and committee. Thomas moved to adopt Resolution No. 1859 adopting financial, accounting, and budgetary policies intended to improve financial stability in furtherance of the goals established in the City Council's Strategic Plan. Perry seconded. Perry then said it is important for the city to be financially healthy, and to have a cushion when cyclical changes happen. Thomas suggested that each paragraph in Exhibit A which starts with "will" or "shall" should instead start with "try". Ralph asked that the Council set up goals and timelines. Higgins concurred. The motion to adopt Resolution No. 1859 then carried. REPORTS A. Council President. (CFN-198) Higgins reported on the discussion which took place at tonight's workshop on infrastructure needs, and said a recommendation will be coming soon. 4 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2012 B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke announced the upcoming ground breaking at Riverview Park. C. Administration. (CFN-198) Hodgson noted that the ShoWare Center will be holding 13 graduation ceremonies this spring, consisting of 6,000 students and 40,000 family members. He pointed out that only 4 of those are from Kent. He said there will be an executive session of approximately ten minutes to discuss property negotiations, and that action will be taken when the meeting reconvenes. D. Economic & Community Development Committee. (CFN-198) Perry noted that the next meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. on June 11. E. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. F. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. G. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Boyce noted that the next meeting will be held on June 12 at 4:30 p.m. H. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Albertson announced that the next meeting is on June 18, and that due to the 4th of July holiday, the meetings in July will be on the 16th , with a special meeting on the 23ra I. Regional Fire Authority. (CFN-198) Thomas reported on his attendance at conferences in Yakima and Chelan. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 9:13 and reconvened at 9:34 p.m. A. Property Negotiations. (CFN-239) Hodgson explained that the discussion in Executive Session involves a piece of property the city has been considering for community and civic purposes. He said agreement has not been reached and that action is required. Higgins moved to reject the Purchase and Sale Agreement under negotiation for the property located at 233 2nd Avenue in Kent, specifically disproving the purchase terms and conditions contained in that agreement. Perry seconded. Albertson stated that her husband has a legal relationship with the person involved in this property and recused herself from participating and voting. Thomas said he feels the city could have made a good faith offer of a little more. The motion then carried 5-1 with Thomas opposed, and Albertson recused. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 5 '�•✓' I€�1vI T Kent City Council Workshop June 5, 2012 Council Members Present: Albertson, Boyce, Higgins, Perry, Ralph, Ranniger and Thomas. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Council President Higgins. Infrastructure Fundina. The Council President reported on discussions held by the ad hoc committee at their last two meetings. That was followed by a lengthy discussion on funding options, timing, and public communications. Intergovernmental Issues. Council members reported on the regional meetings they have recently attended. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CIVIC City Clerk ` �✓" C� * T Council Retreat June 1, 2012 2:00 p.m. Council members Present: Boyce, Higgins, Perry, Ralph, and Ranniger. Council member Albertson attended by phone. The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Council President Higgins, and recessed to Executive Session to discuss a matter of pending litigation. At 2:35 p.m., CAO Hodgson announced that the Executive Session will take another ten minutes. The regular meeting reconvened at 2:50 p.m. Infrastructure Funding Update. It was noted that discussion of this item has been moved to the workshop of June 5. Strategic Plan Updates. Facilitator Bonnie Boyle explained that the Council members and MLT staff will break into two groups to update and make changes to the timelines of four of their strategic goals: Creating Neighborhood Urban Centers, Creating Connections for People and Places, Fostering Inclusiveness, and Beautifying Kent. After those discussions were held, the groups reported on their revisions. Hodgson noted that the Mayor's Office will incorporate the changes into the Strategic Plan. Closing Comments. Boyle recommended that the Council members and MLT staff hold a 4-5 hour retreat quarterly to discuss the Strategic Plan. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7C TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: 2012 Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Grants — Accept MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants in the amount of $400,000, amend the budget and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms and conditions, subject to approval of final terms and conditions acceptable to the Economic and Community Development Director and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The city of Kent has been awarded a total of $400,000 from the EPA to conduct a community-wide assessment for Hazardous Substance Brownfields and Petroleum Brownfields. The City will use these funds to complete a community-wide inventory and prioritization of Brownfield sites within the City, as well as perform up to 16 Phase I and 10 Phase II environmental site assessments on identified sites, complete additional site investigation and remedial action plans for select sites, and perform community outreach and education related to Brownfields. EXHIBITS: ECDC Staff Report 6/11/2012 RECOMMENDED BY: Economic and Community Development Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION 0 Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager A H I N c �N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 11, 2012 TO: Chair Jamie Perry and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Josh Hall, Economic Development Specialist RE: 2012 EPA Brownfield Grant For Meeting of June 11, 2012 MOTION: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to accept the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants in the amount of $400,000, amend the budget, and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to the Economic and Community Development Director and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The City of Kent has been awarded a total of $400,000 from the EPA to conduct a community-wide assessment for Hazardous Substance Brownfields and Petroleum Brownfields. The City will use these funds to complete a community-wide inventory and prioritization of brownfield sites within the City, as well as perform up to 16 Phase I and 10 Phase II environmental site assessments on identified sites, complete additional site investigation and remedial action plans for select sites, and perform community outreach and education related to brownfields. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, utilizes existing infrastructure, takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment. There currently is not a formal inventory of brownfield sites within the City. A review of environmental databases maintained by the Washington State Department of Ecology document the presence in the City of 1,047 potentially impacted sites, including 582 hazardous waste generators, 294 underground storage tank (UST) sites, 136 leaking UST (LUST) sites, and three Superfund sites. A Phase I property assessment includes a historical investigation and preliminary site inspection. A Phase II assessment is more in-depth and includes sampling activities to indentify the types and concentrations of contaminants, and the areas to be cleaned. ]H/pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2012\Packet Documents\06-11-12\2012 EPA Brownfield ECDC Memo.docx cc: Ben Wolters,ECD Director KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7D TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Downtown Strategic Action Plan, Planning Principles - Approve MOTION: Approve the planning principles for the update of the 2005 Downtown Strategic Action Plan. SUMMARY: The update to the 2005 Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) will result in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan. The planning principles will provide a foundation to guide the update. The subarea planning effort will engage stakeholders, reflect current economic development opportunities, and identify actions to advance the vision for downtown. EXHIBITS: ECDC Staff Report Memo dated 6/11/12 and Planning Principles RECOMMENDED BY: Economic and Community Development Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KEN T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASHINaTO.0 Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 7, 2012 TO: Chair Jamie Perry and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Gloria Gould-Wessen, Planner/GIS Coordinator RE: Downtown Subarea Action Plan Update & PAO (CPA-2012-1): Planning Principles For Meeting of June 11, 2012 MOTION: Move to confirm and forward to Kent City Council the planning principles for the Downtown Strategic Action Plan 2012 Update as developed by the Economic and Community Development Department. SUMMARY: The planning principles provide a foundation for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) update. The DSAP update will refresh strategic actions adopted in 2005. The update effort will engage stakeholders, reflect current economic development opportunities, and identify actions to advance the vision for downtown. A Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to incentivize redevelopment will also be an outcome of the DSAP update. The planning principles will guide the public outreach and project outcomes. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On May 14, 2012, the Economic and Community Development Committee moved to direct staff to update the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and on June 5, 2012, City Council passed Resolution 1857 that found the aforementioned update an issue of community-wide significance and authorizes staff and the Land Use and Planning Board to process this amendment. The planning principles set the tone for the DSAP update effort, and can be drawn upon throughout the process. GGW/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PltAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\ECDC\06-11-12\Memo.doc Enc: Attach A: DSAP 2012 Update: Planning Principles cc: Ben Wolters,Economic&Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager David GalaAn,Assistant City Attorney Hie I inlvwin Stibaii-eatlbin II'bIIIIai 01 m IIII 't'e IIIItIIIIulr�ulr�liiiulr� IIII'tuumliiiulr� lii11114bIIII 1. Ill lmrainini orallbllie IIC owinitowini II Exll4'mmmiiriiierilc,mra The plan will help to make downtown Kent an extraordinary place whether one lives in downtown or comes to shop or visit. It is attractive and safe, with year- round activities that contribute to its interest. It is the heart of Kent. 2. IIF'4 mmini oninuiiic tdliitalllliity The plan's proposed actions will contribute to the economic vitality of the downtown. Downtown should provide a mix of service and retail businesses that are important to the local community, including those who reside in downtown. The success of business in downtown is key to the area's future growth. 3. tturllbaini III livallbliilllliity The plan will recognize that downtown is a desirable place to live. A variety of housing choices are available, including stylish apartments and condominiums. With well-designed open spaces, convenient services, and entertainment opportunities close-by, downtown truly becomes its own neighborhood. 4. 114mmradestiriiiaini 114muriiiorliity The plan will strive to create a downtown where the built environment suggests a "pedestrian first" message. It will be easy, comfortable, and safe for those who walk or ride a bike, and there will be strong connections to surrounding neighborhoods. 5. Iltlunjoyallbllie Ouitdooir Slli�wacm The plan will encourage a system of public as well as private outdoor spaces that enhances the downtown experience for people. Larger open spaces and small pocket parks combined with urban plazas, passageways, sidewalk cafes, and other outdoor opportunities add another dimension to urban living. 6. IIHtemm'tllhullboirllhood Coiininulli�patiliillbliilllliity The plan seeks to connect surrounding neighborhoods with the activities and opportunities of downtown. The transition in urban development from downtown to its surrounding neighborhoods should be gentle and gracious. 7. IltlunummiiiuronirinxunutaIII Suinstaiiinuallbliilllliity The plan should seek to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Best practices for sustainable building and land management should be part of the plan. S. C oninuuninuliitininueirlIt to IlCuninulli�plllxuninu eirltiixunu The downtown planning effort should include an implementation strategy that leads to the fulfillment of the vision. KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7E TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Consolidating Budget Adjustment Ordinance - Adopt MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. approving the consolidating budget adjustments made between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011, reflecting an overall budget increase of $9,968,168. SUMMARY: Authorization is requested to approve the technical gross budget adjustment ordinance reflecting an overall budget increase of $9,968,168 for budget adjustments made between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. An overall increase of $10,456,493 was previously approved by Council, including the Final Assessment Roll for LID 362 totaling $2,422,936, WATPA Grant of $1,600,000 and establishing a budget for flood control reimbursement with King County for $2,518,123. EXHIBITS: Ordinance, including Exhibit A RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The remaining amount is an overall decrease of $488,325. This reduction is largely due to the reversal of unfunded technology, parks and facility projects coupled with an increase of $2,800,000 to cover debt service on ShoWare Center. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 2011 budget for adjustments made between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Budget Adjustments. The 2011 budget is amended to include budget fund adjustments for the year up to December 31't, as summarized and set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached and incorporated into this ordinance. SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and effect. SECTION 3. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the 1 2011 Budget Adjustment Second Half correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2012. APPROVED: day of 2012. PUBLISHED: day of 2012. 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\Ordinance\Budget Adj ustment Second Half 2011.docx 2 2011 Budget Adjustment Second Half City of Kent Budget Adjustment Ordinance Adjustments July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Exhibit A Previously Approval Total Adjustment Fund Title Approved Requested Ordinance 001 General Fund 22,379 22,379 110 Street Fund 221,375 221,375 150 Capital Improvement Fund 1,369,000 1,369,000 160 Criminal Justice Fund 1,758,716 1,758,716 170 Environmental Fund 90,939 90,939 180 Housing & Community Development Fund (111,942) (111,942) 190 Other Projects Fund (544,312) 6,410 (537,902) 310 Street Capital Projects Fund 4,634,134 4,634,134 320 Parks Capital Projects Fund 716,557 (309,735) 406,822 340 Technology Capital Projects (1,334,000) (1,334,000) 350 Facilities Capital Projects (2,826) (2,826) 440 Sewerage Operating 3,131,607 3,131,607 480 Golf Operating 87,196 87,196 510 Fleet Services Fund 214,422 214,422 540 Facilities Management Fund 238,248 (220,000) 18,248 10,456,493 (488,325) 9,968,168 Budget Adjustment Details for Budget Changes July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Approval Date or Expense Fund and Project Explanation Previous Fund Amount 1 General Fund Previously Approved by Council 1000 4Culture Sustained Support Grant 06072011 17,000 1000 NRPA Grant - Take Me Fishing Grant 09062011 999 1000 WA St Arts Comm Ong Sup Grant 11022010 4,380 Total General Fund 22,379 110 Street Fund Previously Approved by Council 1120 Tran Funds from TIF to 256 11012011 215,358 R00061 Redistribute Project Funds Fund 310 6,017 Total Street Fund 221,375 150 Capital Improvement Fund Not previously approved by Council 1500 Budget ShoWare Debt Svc 2,800,000 1500 Reverse Unfunded Projects (1,431,000) Total Capital Improvement Fund 1,369,000 160 Criminal Justice Fund Previously Approved by Council N00024 Ed Byrne Mem Grant-JAG 2011 09202011 66,460 N00025 DOJ-BJA (SCAAP) 11152011 9,975 N00064 SAMHSA Drug-Free Community Sup Prog 09202011 33,593 N00082 Lake Meridian Police OT 09202011 18,856 N00094 DOJ Ballistic Vest 11152011 4,832 N00810 AP-WTSC Target Zero Grant 08162011 2,500 N00812 WTSC School Zone Flasher 07192011 22,500 N00906 2011 WATPA Grant 08162011 1,600,000 Total Criminal Justice Fund 1,758,716 170 Environmental Fund Previously Approved by Council M17103 CPG Grant 02162010 54,941 M17103 Haz Waste Mgmt Prog Grnt 02152011 24,103 M17103 Waste Reduct & Recycle Gmt 02152011 11,895 Total Environmental Fund 90,939 180 Housing &Comm Dev Fund Previously Approved by Council B00028 CDBG Action Plan allocation 11022010 (111,942) Total Housing &Comm Dev Fund (111,942) Budget Adjustment Details for Budget Changes July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Approval Date or Expense Fund and Project Explanation Previous Fund Amount 190 Other Operating Projects Fund Previously Approved by Council H00014 Safe Havens Fees for Svc 10022007 5,688 V00011 Reallocate Project Funds 01012010 (550,000) Not previously approved by Council H00080 Utili Assist Fund Donation - 2010 3,480 H00080 Utili Assist Fund Donation - 2011 2,930 Total Operating Projects Fund (537,902) 310 Street Capital Projects Fund Previously Approved by Council R20036 SEPA Ordinance #2494 10011984 440,877 R20037 Knt Kngly Pedestrian Imp Gt 09202011 413,200 R20109 Reallocate Project Funds 01012010 550,000 R90056 LID 362 Final Assmnt Roll 09072010 2,422,936 R90058 Smith & Lincoln Sidewalk 03152011 597,780 R90088 Tran Funds from TIF to 256 11012011 215,358 R90097 Reallocate Project Funds Fund 110 (6,017) Total Street Capital Projects Fund 4,634,134 320 Parks Capital Projects Fund Previously Approved by Council P20007 Reg Trails KC Levy Budget 05012007 190,520 P20008 Lk Meridian Boat Launch Fee 08052008 7,950 P20049 KC Consery Futures Grnt Ag 07052011 778,827 P20049 Reallocate Project Funds Fund 320 (607,239) P20072 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 10012002 20,528 P20072 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 08022005 19,420 P20072 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 02072006 22,738 P20072 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 06062006 21,604 P20090 Prtners in Preservation Gnt 04052011 70,000 P21003 KC Youth Sports Facility Gt 02012011 75,000 P21009 DNR Grnt-Grn Knt Initiative 08032011 9,984 P21009 King Conservation Dist Grnt 05032011 50,000 P21011 4th Qtr Fee-In-Lieu Funds 02012011 57,225 Not previously approved by Council P20022 Record Donations/Contrib 2,283 P20059 Record Donations/Contrib 7,444 P20083 Record Donations/Contrib 2,588 P20310 Reverse Unfunded Projects (25,000) P20510 Reverse Unfunded Projects (102,000) P21009 Record Donations/Contrib 4,950 P21010 Reverse Unfunded Projects (100,000) P21011 Reverse Unfunded Projects (100,000) Total Parks Capital Projects Fund 406,822 Budget Adjustment Details for Budget Changes July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Approval Date or Expense Fund and Project Explanation Previous Fund Amount 340 Technology Capital Projects Not previously approved by Council T20009 Reverse Unfunded Projects (500,000) T20104 Reverse Unfunded Projects (639,000) T20134 Reverse Unfunded Projects (195,000) Total Technology Capital Projects Fund (1,334,000) 350 Facilities Capital Projects Previously Approved by Council F20065 Reallocate Project Funds Fund 540 (2,826) Total Facilities Capital Projects Fund (2,826) 440 Sewerage Operating Previously Approved by Council D00010 Dept of Ecol Stormwater Gnt 09212010 367,065 D00054 Interlocal w/KC for HH Dam 09152009 2,518,123 D20074 King Conservation Dist Grnt 11152011 46,419 D20075 M Crk/Gr River Rest Proj Gt 04052011 200,000 Total Sewerage Operating Fund 3,131,607 480 Golf Operating Previously Approved by Council 4800 Admissions tax 06152010 67,062 4800 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 06152010 20,134 Total Golf Operating Fund 87,196 510 Fleet Services Fund Previously Approved by Council 5100 Reallocate Project Funds 01012011 214,422 Total Fleet Services Fund 214,422 540 Facilities Management Fund Previously Approved by Council 5400 Rev from Cell Tower Leases 01162001 21,000 F00108 Reallocate Project Funds Fund 350 2,876 F00308 Reallocate Project Funds Fund 350 (50) F00710 Reallocate Project Funds 01012011 214,422 Not previously approved by Council F00811 Reverse Unfunded Projects (220,000) Total Facilities Management Fund 18,248 Grand Total 9,968,168 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7F TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: King County Animal Services Agreement - Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the animal services interlocal agreement with King County, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Parks Director. SUMMARY: Enter into a new interlocal agreement with King County as part of the Regional Animal Services of King County (RASKC) coalition. The duration of this agreement is three years (2013- 2015), with a potential two-year extension. EXHIBITS: Animal Services Interlocal Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: General Fund Budget Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 This AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective as of this 191 day of July, 2012, by and between KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation and legal subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County") and the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"). WHEREAS, the provision of animal control, sheltering and licensing services protects public health and safety and promotes animal welfare; and WHEREAS, providing such services on a regional basis allows for enhanced coordination and tracking of regional public and animal health issues, consistency of regulatory approach across jurisdictional boundaries, economies of scale, and ease of access for the public; and WHEREAS, the Contracting Cities are partners in making regional animal services work effectively, and are customers of the Animal Services Program provided by the County; and WHEREAS, in light of the joint interest among the Contracting Parties in continuing to develop a sustainable program for regional animal services, including achievement of sustainable funding resources, the County intends to include cities in the process of identifying and recommending actions to generate additional revenues through the Joint City-County Committee, and further intends to convene a group of elected officials with a representative from each Contracting City to discuss and make recommendations on any potential countywide revenue initiative for animal services requiring voter approval, the implementation of which would be intended to coincide with the end of the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the City is not implicitly agreeing to or supportive of any potential voter approved levy initiative in support of animal services; and WHEREAS, the City and the County are parties to an Animal Services Interlocal Agreement dated July 1, 2010, which will terminate on December 31, 2012 (the "2010 Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated a successor agreement to the 2010 Agreement in order to extend delivery of Animal Services to the City for an additional three years beginning January 1, 2013; and Document Dated 5-29-12 1 WHEREAS, certain notification and other commitments under this successor Agreement arise before January 2013, but the delivery of Animal Services under this Agreement will not commence until January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the provision of service or manner and timing of compensation and reconciliation specified in the 2010 Agreement for services provided in 2012; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW Chapter 39.34) , is authorized and desires to contract with the County for the performance of Animal Services; and WHEREAS, the County is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Section 120 of the King County Charter and King County Code 11.02.030 to render such services and is willing to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the County is offering a similar form of Animal Services Interlocal Agreement to cities in King County listed in Exhibit C-1 to this Agreement, and has received a non- binding statement of intent to sign such agreement from those cities; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly shows another usage is intended, the following terms shall have these meanings in this Agreement: a. "Agreement" means this Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 between the Parties including any and all Exhibits hereto, unless the context clearly indicates an intention to reference all such Agreements by and between the County and other Contracting Cities. b. "Animal Services" means Control Services, Shelter Services and Licensing Services combined, as these services are described in Exhibit A. Collectively, "Animal Services" are sometimes referred to herein as the "Program." c. "Enhanced Control Services" are additional Control Services that the City may purchase under certain terms and conditions as described in Exhibit E (the "Enhance Control Services Contract"). d. "Contracting Cities" means all cities that are parties to an Agreement. e. "Parties" means the City and the County. f. "Contracting Parties" means all Contracting Cities and the County. g. "Estimated Payment" means the amount the City is estimated to owe to the County for the provision of Animal Services over a six month period per the Document Dated 5-29-12 2 formulas set forth in Exhibit C. The Estimated Payment calculation may result in a credit to the City payable by the County. h. "Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment" means the preliminary estimate of the amount that will be owed by (or payable to) each Contracting Party for payment June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 as shown on Exhibit C-1. i. "Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount estimated by the County on or before August 1, 2012 per Section 5, to be owed by each Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 based on the number of Contracting Cities with respect to which the Agreement goes into effect per Section 15. This estimate will also provide the basis for determining whether the Agreement meets the "2013 Payment Test" in Section 15. j. The "Final Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount owed by each Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013, notice of which shall be given to the City by the County no later than December 15, 2012. k. "Control District" means one of the three geographic areas delineated in Exhibit B for the provision of Animal Control Services. 1. 'Reconciliation Adjustment Amount" means the amount payable each August 15 by either the City or County as determined per the reconciliation process described in Exhibit D. "Reconciliation" is the process by which the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount is determined. m. "Service Year" means the calendar year in which Animal Services are or were provided. n. "2010 Agreement" means the Animal Services Agreement between the Parties effective July 1, 2010, and terminating at midnight on December 31, 2012. o. "New Regional Revenue" means revenue received by the County specifically for support of Animal Services generated from regional marketing campaigns (excluding local licensing canvassing efforts by Contracting Cities or per Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation and entrepreneurial activities, except where revenues from these sources are designated for specific purposes within the Animal Services program; provided that New Regional Revenue does not include Licensing Revenue, Non-Licensing Revenue or Designated Donations, as defined in Exhibit C. The manner of estimating and allocating New Regional Revenue is prescribed in Exhibit C-4 and Exhibit D. p. "Latecomer City"means a city receiving animal services under an agreement with the County executed after July 1, 2012, per the conditions of Section 4.a. Document Dated 5-29-12 3 2. Services Provided. Beginning January 1, 2013, the County will provide the City with Animal Services described in Exhibit A. The County will perform these services consistent with governing City ordinances adopted in accordance with Section 3. In providing such Animal Services consistent with Exhibit A, the County will engage in good faith with the Joint City-County Committee to develop potential adjustments to field protocols; provided that, the County shall have sole discretion as to the staffing assigned to receive and dispatch calls and the manner of handling and responding to calls for Animal Service. Except as set forth in Section 9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless), services to be provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement do not include services of legal counsel, which shall be provided by the City at its own expense. a. Enhanced Control Services. The City may request Enhanced Control Services by completing and submitting Exhibit E to the County. Enhanced Services will be provided subject to the terms and conditions described in Exhibit E, including but not limited to a determination by the County that it has the capacity to provide such services. 3. City Obligations. a. Animal Regulatory Codes Adopted. To the extent it has not already done so, the City shall promptly enact an ordinance or resolution that includes license, fee, penalty, enforcement, impound/ redemption and sheltering provisions that are substantially the same as those of Title 11 King County Code as now in effect or hereafter amended (hereinafter "the City Ordinance"). The City shall advise the County of any City animal care and control standards that differ from those of the County. b. Authorization to Act on Behalf of City. Beginning January 1, 2013, the City authorizes the County to act on its behalf in undertaking the following: i. Determining eligibility for and issuing licenses under the terms of the City Ordinance, subject to the conditions set forth in such laws. ii. Enforcing the terms of the City Ordinance, including the power to issue enforcement notices and orders and to deny, suspend or revoke licenses issued thereunder. iii. Conducting administrative appeals of those County licensing determinations made and enforcement actions taken on behalf of the City. Such appeals shall be considered by the King County Board of Appeals unless either the City or the County determines that the particular matter should be heard by the City. iv. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to divest the City of authority to independently undertake such enforcement actions as it deems appropriate to respond to violations of any City ordinances. Document Dated 5-29-12 4 c. Cooperation and Licensing Support. The City will assist the County in its efforts to inform City residents regarding animal codes and regulations and licensing requirements and will promote the licensing of pets by City residents through various means as the City shall reasonably determine, including but not limited to offering the sale of pet licenses at City Hall, mailing information to residents (using existing City communication mechanisms such as bill inserts or community newsletters) and posting a weblink to the County's animal licensing program on the City's official website. The City will provide to the County accurate and timely records regarding all pet license sales processed by the City. All proceeds of such sales shall be remitted to the County by the City on a quarterly basis (no later than each March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31). 4. Term. Except as otherwise specified in Section 15, this Agreement will take effect as of July 1, 2012 and, unless extended pursuant to Subparagraph 4.b below, shall remain in effect through December 31, 2015. The Agreement may not be terminated for convenience. a. Latecomers. The County may sign an agreement with additional cities for provision of animal services prior to the termination or expiration of this Agreement, but only if the later agreement will not cause an increase in the City's costs payable to the County under this Agreement. Cities that are party to such agreements are referred to herein as "Latecomer Cities." b. Extension of Term. The Parties may agree to extend the Agreement for an additional two-year term, ending on December 31, 2017. For purposes of determining whether the Agreement shall be extended, the County will invite all Contracting Cities to meet in September 2014, to discuss both: (1) a possible extension of the Agreement under the same terms and conditions; and (2) a possible extension with amended terms. i. Either Party may propose amendments to the Agreement as a condition of an extension. ii. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to compel either Party to agree to an extension or amendment of the Agreement, either on the same or different terms. iii. The County agrees to give serious consideration to maintaining the various credits provided to the Contracting City under this Agreement in any extension of the Agreement. c. Notice of Intent to Not Extend. No later than March 1, 2015, the Parties shall provide written notice to one another of whether they wish to extend this Agreement on the same or amended terms. The County will include a written reminder of this March 1 deadline when providing the City notice of Document Dated 5-29-12 5 its 2015 Estimated Payments (notice due December 15, 2014 per Section 5). By April 5, 2015, the County will provide all Contracting Cities with a list of all Contracting Parties submitting such notices indicating which Parties do not seek an extension, which Parties request an extension under the same terms, and which Parties request an extension under amended terms. d. Timeline for Extension. If the Contracting Parties wish to extend their respective Agreements (whether under the same or amended terms) through December 31, 2017, they shall do so in writing no later than July 1, 2015. Absent such an agreed extension, the Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2015. e. Limited Reopener and Termination. If a countwide, voter approved property tax levy for funding some or all of the Animal Services program is proposed that would impose new tax obligations before January 1, 2016, this Agreement shall be re-opened for the limited purposes of negotiating potential changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas herein. Such changes may be made in order to reasonably ensure that the Contracting Cities are receiving equitable benefits from the proposed new levy revenues. Re-opener negotiations shall be initiated by the County no later than 60 days before the date of formal transmittal of such proposal to the County Council for its consideration. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if the re-opener negotiations have failed to result in mutually agreed upon changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas (as reflected in either an executed amendment to this Agreement or a memorandum of understanding signed between the chief executive officers of the Parties) within 10 days of the date that the election results confirming approval of such proposal are certified, either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing notice to the other Party no sooner than the date the election results are certified and no later than 15 days following the end of such 10-day period. Any termination notice so issued will become effective 180 days following the date of the successful election, or the date on which the levy is first imposed, whichever is sooner. I. The 2010 Agreement remains in effect through December 31, 2012. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit or amend the obligation of the County to provide Animal Services under the 2010 Agreement as provided therein and nothing in this Agreement shall amend the obligations therein with respect to the calculation, timing, and reconciliation of payment of such services. 5. Compensation. The County will develop an Estimated Payment calculation for each Service Year using the formulas described in Exhibit C, and shall transmit the payment information to the City according to the schedule described below. The Document Dated 5-29-12 6 County will also calculate and inform the City as to the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount on or before June 30 of each year, as described in Section 6 below and Exhibit D, in order to reconcile the Estimated Payments made by the City in the prior Service Year. The City (or County, if applicable) will pay the Estimated Payment, and any applicable Reconciliation Adjustment Amounts as follows (a list of all payment-related notices and dates is included at Exhibit C-7): a. Service Year 2013: The County will provide the City with a calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for Service Year 2013 on or before August 1, 2012, which shall be derived from the Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment Amount set forth on Exhibit C-1, adjusted if necessary based on the Contracting Cities and other updates to Calendar Year 2011 data in Exhibit C-2. The County will provide the City with the Final Estimated Payment calculation for Service Year 2013 by December 15, 2012. The City will pay the County the Preliminary Estimated Payment Amounts for Service Year 2013 on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. If the calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment shows the City is entitled to receive a payment from the County, the County will pay the City such amount on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for Service Year 2013 shall be paid on or before August 15, 2014, as described in Section 6. b. Service Years after 2013. i. Initial Estimate by September 1. To assist the City with its budgeting process, the County will provide the City with a non-binding, preliminary indication of the Estimated Payments for the upcoming Service Year on or before each September 1. ii. Estimated Payment Determined by December 15. The Estimated Payment amounts for the upcoming Service Year will be determined by the County following adoption of the County's budget and applying the formulas in Exhibit C. The County will by December 15 provide written notice to all Contracting Parties of the schedule of Estimated Payments for the upcoming Service Year. iii. Estimated Payments Due Each Tune 15 and December 15. The City will pay the County the Estimated Payment Amount on or before each June 15 and December 15. If the calculation of the Estimated Payment shows the City is entitled to receive a payment from the County, the County will pay the City such amount on or before each June 15 and December 15. iv. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for the prior Service Year shall be paid on or before August 15 of the following calendar year, as described in Section 6. Document Dated 5-29-12 7 v. If a Party fails to pay an Estimated Payment or Reconciliation Adjustment Amount within 15 days of the date owed, the Party owed shall notify the owing Party that they have ten (10) days to cure non- payment. If the Party fails to cure its nonpayment within this time period following notice, the amount owed shall accrue interest thereon at the rate of 1%, per month from and after the original due date and, if the nonpaying Party is the City, the County at its sole discretion may withhold provision of Animal Services to the City until all outstanding amounts are paid. If the nonpaying Party is the County, the City may withhold future Estimated Payments until all outstanding amounts are paid. Each Party may examine the other's books and records to verify charges. vi. Unless the Parties otherwise direct, payments shall be submitted to the addresses noted at Section 14.g. c. Payment Obligation Survives Expiration or Termination of Agreement. The obligation of the City (or as applicable, the County), to pay an Estimated Payment Amount or Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for a Service Year included in the term of this Agreement shall survive the Expiration or Termination of this Agreement. For example, if this Agreement terminates on December 31, 2015, the Final Estimated 2015 Payment is nevertheless due on or before December 15, 2015, and the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount shall be payable on or before August 15, 2016. d. The Parties agree the payment and reconciliation formulas in this Agreement (including all Exhibits) are fair and reasonable. 6. Reconciliation of Estimated Payments and Actual Costs and Revenues. In order that the Contracting Parties share costs of the regional Animal Services Program based on their actual, rather than estimated, licensing revenues, there will be an annual reconciliation. Specifically, on or before June 30 of each year, the County will reconcile amounts owed under this Agreement for the prior Service Year by comparing each Contracting Party's Estimated Payments to the amount derived by recalculating the formulas in Exhibit C using actual revenue data for such Service Period as detailed in Exhibit D. There will also be an adjustment if necessary to account for annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more and for changes in relative population shares of Contracting Parties' attributable to Latecomer Cities. The County will provide the results of the reconciliation to all Contracting Parties in writing on or before June 30. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount will be paid on or before August 15 of the then current year, regardless of the prior termination of the Agreement as per Section 5.c. Document Dated 5-29-12 g 7. Regional Revenue Generation and Licensing Revenue Support a. The Parties intend that the provision of Animal Services becomes significantly more financially sustainable over the initial three year term of this Agreement through the development of New Regional Revenue and the generation of additional Licensing Revenue. The County will develop proposals designed to support this goal. The County will consult with the Joint City-County Committee before proceeding with efforts to implement proposals to generate New Regional Revenue. b. The Parties do not intend for the provision of Animal Services or receipt of such Services under this Agreement to be a profit-making enterprise. Where a Contracting Party receives revenues in excess of its costs under this Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service and Enhanced Control Service, if applicable), they will be reinvested in the Program to reduce the costs of other Contracting Parties and to improve service delivery: the cost allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome. c. Licensing Revenue Support. i. In 2013, the County will provide licensing revenue support to the nine Contracting Cities identified on Exhibit C-5 (the "Licensing Revenue Support Cities"). ii. The City may request licensing revenue support from the County in 2014 and 2015 by executing Attachment A to Exhibit F. The terms and conditions under which such licensing revenue support will be provided are further described at Exhibit C-5 and Exhibit F. Except as otherwise provided in Exhibit C-5 with respect to Licensing Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target of over $20,000 (per Table 1 of Exhibit C-5), provision of licensing revenue support in 2014 and 2015 is subject to the County determining it has capacity to provide such services, with priority allocation of any available services going first to Licensing Revenue Support Cities on a first-come, first-served basis and thereafter being allocated to other Contracting Cities requesting service on a first-come, first-served basis. Provision of licensing revenue support is further subject to the Parties executing a Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F). iii. In addition to other terms described in Exhibit F, receipt of licensing revenue support is subject to the recipient City providing in-kind services, including but not limited to: assisting in communication with City residents; publicizing any canvassing efforts the Parties have agreed should be implemented; assisting in the recruitment of canvassing staff, if applicable; and providing information to the County to assist in targeting its canvassing activities, if applicable. Document Dated 5-29-12 9 8. Mutual Covenants/Independent Contractor. The Parties understand and agree that the County is acting hereunder as an independent contractor with the intended following results: a. Control of County personnel, standards of performance, discipline, and all other aspects of performance shall be governed entirely by the County; b. All County persons rendering service hereunder shall be for all purposes employees of the County, although they may from time to time act as commissioned officers of the City; C. The County contact person for the City staff regarding all issues arising under this Agreement, including but not limited to citizen complaints, service requests and general information on animal control services is the Manager of Regional Animal Services. 9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. a. City Held Harmless. 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 any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same. b. County Held Harmless. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County 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 any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the County reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and Document Dated 5-29-12 10 employees, or any of them, or jointly against the County and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same. c. Liability Related to City Ordinances, Policies, Rules and Regulations. In executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility that arises in whole or in part as a result of the application of City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations that are either in place at the time this Agreement takes effect or differ from those of the County; or that arise in whole or in part based upon any failure of the City to comply with applicable adoption requirements or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. d. Waiver Under Washington Industrial Insurance Act. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, as respects the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. 10. Dispute Resolution. Whenever any dispute arises between the Parties or between the Contracting Parties under this Agreement which is not resolved by routine meetings or communications, the disputing parties agree to seek resolution of such dispute in good faith by meeting, as soon as feasible. The meeting shall include the Chief Executive Officer (or his/her designee) of each party involved in the dispute and the Manager of the Regional Animal Services Program. If the parties do not come to an agreement on the dispute, any party may pursue mediation through a process to be mutually agreed to in good faith by the parties within 30 days, which may include binding or nonbinding decisions or recommendations. The mediator(s) shall be individuals skilled in the legal and business aspects of the subject matter of this Agreement. The parties to the dispute shall share equally the costs of mediation and assume their own costs. 11. Joint City-County Committee and Collaborative Initiatives. A committee composed of 3 county representatives (appointed by the County) and one Document Dated 5-29-12 11 representative from each Contracting City that chooses to appoint a representative shall meet upon reasonable request of a Contracting City or the County, but in no event shall the Committee meet less than twice each year. Committee members may not be elected officials. The Committee shall review service issues and make recommendations regarding efficiencies and improvements to services, and shall review and make recommendations regarding the conduct and findings of the collaborative initiatives identified below. Subcommittees to focus on individual initiatives may be formed, each of which shall include membership from both county and city members of the Joint City-County Committee. Recommendations of the Joint City-County Committee are non-binding. The collaborative initiatives to be explored shall include, but are not necessarily limited to: a. Proposals to update animal services codes, including fees and penalties, as a means to increase revenues and incentives for residents to license, retain, and care for pets. b. Exploring the practicability of engaging a private for-profit licensing system operator. c. Pursuing linkages between County and private non-profit shelter and rescue operations to maximize opportunities for pet adoption, reduction in homeless pet population, and other efficiencies. d. Promoting licensing through joint marketing activities of Contracting Cities and the County, including recommending where the County's marketing efforts will be deployed each year. e. Exploring options for continuous service improvement, including increasing service delivery efficiencies across the board. f. Studying options for repair and/or replacement of the Kent Shelter. g. Reviewing the results of the County's calculation of the Reconciliation Adjustment Amounts. h. Reviewing preliminary proposed budgets for Animal Services. i. Providing input into the formatting, content and details of periodic Program reports as per Section 12 of this Agreement. j. Reviewing and providing input on proposed Animal Services operational initiatives. k. Providing input on Animal Control Services response protocols with the goal of supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Services resources. 1. Establishing and maintaining a marketing subcommittee with members from within the Joint City-County committee membership and additional staff as may be agreed. m. Collaborating on response and service improvements, including communication with 911 call centers. Document Dated 5-29-12 12 n. Developing alternative dispute mechanisms that may be deployed to assist the public in resolving low-level issues such as barking dog complaints. o. Working with Contracting Cities to plan disaster response for animal sheltering and care. p. Ensuring there is at least one meeting each year within each Control District between the County animal control officer representatives and Contracting Cities' law enforcement representatives. q. Identifying, discussing and where appropriate recommending actions to implement ideas to generate additional revenue to support operation and maintenance of the Animal Services Program, including but not limited to providing input and advice in shaping the terms of any proposed Countywide voted levy to provide funding support for the Animal Services Program. 12. Reporting. The County will provide the City with an electronic report not less than monthly summarizing call response and Program usage data for each of the Contracting Cities and the County and the Animal Services Program. The formatting, content and details of the report will be developed in consultation with the Joint City-County Committee. 13. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing. This Agreement shall be deemed to incorporate amendments to Agreements between the Contracting Parties that are approved by the County and at least two thirds (66'%) of the legislative bodies of all other Contracting Parties (in both number and in the percentage of the prior total Estimated Payments owing from such Contracting Parties in the then current Service Year), evidenced by the authorized signatures of such approving Parties as of the effective date of the amendment; provided that this provision shall not apply to any amendment to this Agreement affecting the Party contribution responsibilities, hold harmless and indemnification requirements, provisions regarding duration, termination or withdrawal, or the conditions of this Section. 14. General Provisions. a. Other Facilities. The County reserves the right to contract with other shelter service providers for housing animals received from within the City or from City residents, whose levels of service meet or exceed those at the County shelter for purposes of addressing shelter overcrowding or developing other means to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency or capacity of animal care and sheltering within King County. Document Dated 5-29-12 13 b. Survivability. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of Section 9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless) shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of the withdrawal or termination of this Agreement. c. Waiver and Remedies. No term or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the Party claimed to have waived or consented. Failure to insist upon full performance of any one or several occasions does not constitute consent to or waiver of any later non-performance nor does payment of a billing or continued performance after notice of a deficiency in performance constitute an acquiescence thereto. The Parties are entitled to all remedies in law or equity. d. Grants. Both Parties shall cooperate and assist each other toward procuring grants or financial assistance from governmental agencies or private benefactors for reduction of costs of operating and maintaining the Animal Services Program and the care and treatment of animals in the Program. e. Force Majeure. In the event either Party's performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement becomes impossible due to war, civil unrest, and any natural event outside of the Party's reasonable control, including fire, storm, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, that Party will be excused from performing such obligations until such time as the Force Majeure event has ended and all facilities and operations have been repaired and/or restored. I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties and supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with or modify its terms and conditions. g. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any notice required to be provided under the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered by E-mail (deemed delivered upon E-mail confirmation of receipt by the intended recipient), certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested or by personal service to the following person (or to any other person that the Party designates in writing to receive notice under this Agreement): For the City: For the County: Caroline Whalen, Director King County Dept. of Executive Services 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 135 Seattle WA. 98104 Document Dated 5-29-12 14 h. Assignment. No Party may sell, transfer or assign any of its rights or benefits under this Agreement without the approval of the other Party. i. Venue. The Venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be in Superior Court in and for King County, Washington. j. Records. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection and review by the County or City for such period as is required by state law (Records Retention Act, Ch. 40.14 RCW) but in any event for not less than 1 year following the expiration or termination of this Agreement. k. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder. 1. Counterparts. This Agreement and any amendments thereto, shall be executed on behalf of each Party by its duly authorized representative and pursuant to an appropriate motion, resolution or ordinance. The Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but those counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument. 15. Terms to Implement Agreement. Because it is unknown how many parties will ultimately approve the Agreement, and participation of each Contracting Party impacts the costs of all other Contracting Parties, the Agreement will go into effect as of July 1, 2012, only if certain "Minimum Contracting Requirements' are met or waived as described in this section. These Minimum Contracting Requirements will not be finally determined until August 15, 2012. If it is determined on or about August 15 that Minimum Contracting Requirements are not met and not waived, then the Agreement will be deemed to have never gone into effect, regardless of the July 1, 2012 stated effective date. If the Minimum Contracting Requirements are met or waived, the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of July 1, 2012. The Minimum Contracting Requirements are: a. For both the City and the County: 1. 2013 Payment Test: The Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment, calculated on or before August 1, 2012, to include the County and all cities that have executed the Agreement on or prior to July 1, 2012, does not exceed the Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment as set forth in Exhibit C-1 by more than five percent (5%) or $3,500, whichever is greater. If the 2013 Payment Test is not met, either Party may waive this condition and allow the Agreement to go into effect, provided that such waiver must be exercised by giving notice to the other Party (which notice shall meet the requirements of Section 14.g) no later than August 15, 2012. Document Dated 5-29-12 15 b. For the County: The Minimum Contiguity of Service Condition must be met, such that the County is only obligated to enter into the Agreement if the County will be providing Animal Services in areas contiguous to the City, whether by reason of having an Agreement with another City or due to the fact that the City is contiguous to unincorporated areas (excluding unincorporated islands within the City limits). The Minimum Contiguity of Service Condition may be waived by the County in its sole discretion. The County shall provide the City notice meeting the requirements of Section 14.g no later than July 21, 2012 if the Minimum Contiguity of Service Condition has not been met. c. On or before August 21, 2012, the County shall send all Contracting Cities an informational email notice confirming the final list of all Contracting Cities with Agreements that have gone into effect. 16. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County Administrative Officer or his/her designee, and by the City Manager, or his/her designee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective as of July 1, 2012. King County City of Kent Dow Constantine King County Executive City Manager/Mayor Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: King County City Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Date Document Dated 5-29-12 16 List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Animal Services Description Exhibit B: Control Service District Map Description Exhibit B-1: Map of Control Service District Exhibit C: Calculation of Estimated Payments Exhibit C-1: Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment (showing participation only by jurisdictions that have expressed interest in contracting for an additional 3 year term) Exhibit C-2: Estimated Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing Data for Jurisdictions, Used to Derive the Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment Exhibit C-3: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Animal Services Costs, Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue and Budget Net Allocable Animal Services Costs for 2013 Exhibit C-4: Calculation and Allocation of Transition Credit, Shelter Credit, and Estimated New Regional Revenue Exhibit C-5: Licensing Revenue Support Exhibit C-6: Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population Components Exhibit C-7: Payment and Calculation Schedule Exhibit D: Reconciliation Exhibit E: Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional) Exhibit F: Licensing Support Contract (Optional) Document Dated 5-29-12 17 Exhibit A Animal Service Description Part I: Control Services Control Services include the operation of a public call center, the dispatch of animal control officers in response to calls, and the handling of calls in the field by animal control officers, including the collection and delivery of animals to the Kent Shelter (or such other shelters as the County may utilize in accordance with this Agreement). 1. Call Center a. The County will operate an animal control call center five days every week (excluding holidays and County-designated furlough days, if applicable) for a minimum of eight hours per day (normal business hours). The County will negotiate with applicable unions with the purpose of obtaining a commitment for the five day call center operation to include at least one weekend day. The County may adjust the days of the week the call center operates to match the final choice of Control District service days. b. The animal control call center will provide callers with guidance, education, options and alternative resources as possible/appropriate. c. When the call center is not in operation, callers will hear a recorded message referring them to 911 in case of emergency, or if the event is not an emergency, to either leave a message or call back during regular business hours. 2. Animal Control Officers a. The County will divide the area receiving Control Services into three Control Districts as shown on Exhibit B. Subject to the limitations provided in this Section 2, Control Districts 200 and 220 will be staffed with one Animal Control Officer during Regular ACO Service Hours and District 500 will be staffed with two Animal Control Officers (ACOs) during Regular ACO Service Hours. Regular ACO Service Hours is defined to include not less than 40 hours per week. The County will negotiate with applicable unions with the intention of obtaining a commitment for Regular ACO Service Hours to include service on at least one weekend day. Regular ACO Service Hours may change from time to time. i. Except as the County may in its sole discretion determine is necessary to protect officer safety, ACOs shall be available for responding to calls within their assigned Control District and will not be generally available to respond to calls in other Control Districts. Exhibit B-1 shows the map of Control Districts. Document Dated 5-29-12 18 ii. Countywide, the County will have a total of not less than 6 ACOs (Full-Time Equivalent employees) on staff to maximize the ability of the County to staff all Control Districts notwithstanding vacation, sick-leave, and other absences, and to respond to high workload areas on a day-to-day basis. While the Parties recognize that the County may at times not be able to staff all Control Districts as proposed given unscheduled sick leave or vacancies, the County will make its best efforts to establish regular hourly schedules and vacations for ACOs in order to minimize any such gaps in coverage. In the event of extended absences among the 6 ACOs, the County will re-allocate remaining ACCs as practicable in order to balance the hours of service available in each Control District. In the event of ACO absences (for any causes and whether or not such absences are extended as a result of vacancies or other issues), the first priority in allocating ACOs shall be to ensure there is an ACO assigned in each Control District during Regular ACO Service Hours. b. Control District boundaries have been designed to balance work load, correspond to jurisdictional boundaries and facilitate expedient transportation access across each district. The County will arrange a location for an Animal Control vehicle to be stationed overnight in Control Districts ("host sites') in order to facilitate service and travel time improvements or efficiencies. c. The County will use its best efforts to ensure that High Priority Calls are responded to by an ACO during Regular ACO Service Hours on the day such call is received. The County shall retain full discretion as to the order in which High Priority calls are responded. High Priority Calls include those calls that pose an emergent danger to the community, including: 1. Emergent animal bite, 2. Emergent vicious dog, 3. Emergent injured animal, 4. Police assist calls—(police officer on scene requesting assistance from an ACC), 5. Emergent loose livestock or other loose or deceased animal that poses a potential danger to the community, and 6. Emergent animal cruelty. d. Lower priority calls include all calls that are not High Priority Calls. These calls will be responded to by the call center staff over the telephone, referral to other resources, or by dispatching of an ACO as necessary or available, all as determined necessary and appropriate in the sole discretion of the Document Dated 5-29-12 19 County. Particularly in the busier seasons of the year (spring through fall), lower priority calls may only receive a telephone response from the Call Center. Lower Priority calls are non-emergent requests for service, including but not limited to: 1. Non-emergent high priority events, 2. Patrol request— (ACO requested to patrol a specific area due to possible code violations), 3. Trespass, 4. Stray Dog/Cat/other animal confined, 5. Barking Dog, 6. Leash Law Violation, 7. Deceased Animal, 8. Trap Request, 9. Female animal in season, and 10. Owner's Dog/Cat/other animal confined. e. The Joint-City County Committee is tasked with reviewing response protocols and recommending potential changes to further the goal of supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Service resources countywide. The County will in good faith consider such recommendations but reserves the right to make final decisions on response protocols. The County will make no changes to its procedures that are inconsistent with the terms of this Exhibit A, except that upon the recommendation of the Joint City-County Committee, the County may agree to modify response with respect to calls involving animals other than horses, livestock, dogs and cats. I. In addition to the ACOs serving specific districts, the following Control Service resources will be available on a shared basis for all Parties and shall be dispatched as deemed necessary and appropriate by the County. 1. An animal control sergeant will provide oversight of and back- up for ACOs five days per week at least 8 hours/day (subject to vacation/sick leave/training/etc.). 2. Staff will be available to perform animal cruelty investigations, to respond to animal cruelty cases, and to prepare related reports (subject to vacation/sick leave/training/etc.). 3. Not less than 1 ACO will be on call every day at times that are not Regular ACO Service Hours (including the days per week that are not included within Regular ACO Service Hours), to respond to High Priority Calls posing an extreme life and safety danger, as determined by the County. g. The Parties understand that rural areas of the County will generally receive a less rapid response time from ACOs than urban areas. Document Dated 5-29-12 20 h. Contracting Cities may contract with King County for "Enhanced Control Services" through separate agreement (as set forth in Exhibit E);provided that a City may not purchase Enhanced Control Services under Option 1 as described in Exhibit E if such City is receiving a Transition Funding Credit, Shelter Credit, or licensing revenue support the cost of which is not reimbursed to the County. Part II: Shelter Services Shelter services include the general care, cleaning and nourishment of owner-released, lost or stray dogs, cats and other animals. Such services shall be provided 7-days per week, 365 days per year at the County's animal shelter in Kent (the "Shelter") or other shelter locations utilized by the County, including related services described in this section. The County's Eastside Pet Adoption Center in the Crossroads area of Bellevue will be closed to the public. During 2013-2015, major maintenance of the Shelter will continue to be included in the Program costs allocated under this Agreement (as part of the central County overhead charges allocated to the Program), but no major renovation, upgrades or replacements of the Shelter established as a capital project within the County Budget are anticipated nor will any such capital project costs be allocated to the Contracting Cities in Service Years 2013-2015. 1. Shelter Services a. Services provided to animals will include enrichment, exercise, care and feeding, and reasonable medical attention. b. The Public Service Counter at the Shelter will be open to the public not less than 30 hours per week and not less than 5 days per week, excluding holidays and County designated furlough days, for purposes of pet redemption, adoption, license sales services and (as may be offered from time to time) pet surrenders. The Public Service Counter at the shelter may be open for additional hours if practicable within available resources. c. The County will maintain a volunteer/foster care function at the Shelter to encourage use of volunteers working at the shelter and use of foster families to provide fostering/transitional care between shelter and permanent homes for adoptable animals. d. The County will maintain an animal placement function at the Shelter to provide for and manage adoption events and other activities leading to the placement of animals in appropriate homes. e. Veterinary services will be provided and will include animal exams, treatment and minor procedures, spay/neuter and other surgeries. Limited Document Dated 5-29-12 21 emergency veterinary services will be available in non-business hours, through third-party contracts, and engaged if and when the County determines necessary. f. The County will take steps through its operating policies, codes, public fee structures and partnerships to reduce the number of animals and their length of stay in the Shelter, and may at times limit owner-surrenders and field pick-ups, adjust fees and incentivize community-based solutions. 2. Other Shelter services a. Dangerous animals will be confined as appropriate/necessary. b. Disaster/emergency preparedness for animals will be coordinated regionally through efforts of King County staff. 3. Shelter for Contracting Cities contracting with PAWS (Potentially including Woodinville, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore ("Northern Cities")). For so long as a Northern City has a contract in effect for sheltering dogs and cats with the Progressive Animal Welfare Society in Lynnwood (PAWS), the County will not shelter dogs and cats picked up within the boundaries of such City(s), except in emergent circumstances and when the PAWS Lynwood shelter is not available. Dogs and cats picked up by the County within such City(s) will be transferred by the County to the PAWS shelter in Lynnwood for shelter care, which will be provided and funded solely through separate contracts between each Northern City and PAWS, and the County will refer residents of that City to PAWS for sheltering services. The County will provide shelter services for animals other than dogs and cats that are picked up within the boundaries of Northern Cities contracting with PAWS on the same terms and conditions that such shelter services are provided to other Contracting Parties. Except as provided in this Section, the County is under no obligation to drop animals picked up in any Contracting City at any shelter other than the County shelter in Kent. 4. County Contract with PAWS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude the County from contracting with PAWS in Lynnwood to care for animals taken in by County ACOs. 5. Service to Persons who are not Residents of Contracting Cities. The County will not provide routine shelter services for animals brought in by persons who are not residents of Contracting Cities, but may provide emergency medical care to such animals, and may seek to recover the cost of such services from the pet owner and/or the City in which the resident lives. Part III: Licensing Services Licensing services include the operation and maintenance of a unified system to license pets in Contracting Cities. Document Dated 5-29-12 22 1. The public will be able to purchase pet licenses in person at the County Licensing Division public service counter in downtown Seattle (500 411' Avenue), King County Community Service Centers and the Kent Animal Shelter during regular business hours. The County will maintain on its website the capacity for residents to purchase pet licenses on-line. 2. The County may seek to engage and maintain a variety of private sector partners (e.g. veterinary clinics, pet stores, grocery stores, city halls, apartment complexes) as hosts for locations where licenses can be sold or promoted in addition to County facilities. 3. The County will furnish licenses and application forms and other materials to the City for its use in selling licenses to the public at City facilities and at public events. 4. The County will publicize reminders and information about pet licensing from time to time through inserts in County mailings to residents and on the County's public television channel. 5. The County will annually mail or E-mail at least one renewal form, reminder and late notice (as applicable) to the last known addresses of all City residents who purchased a pet license from the County within the previous year (using a rolling 12-month calendar). 6. The County may make telephone reminder calls in an effort to encourage pet license renewals. 7. The County shall mail pet license tags or renewal notices as appropriate to individuals who purchase new or renew their pet licenses. 8. The County will maintain a database of pets owned, owners, addresses and violations. 9. The County will provide limited sales and marketing support in an effort to maintain the existing licensing base and increase future license sales. The County reserves the right to determine the level of sales and marketing support provided from year to year in consultation with the Joint City-County Committee. The County will work with any City in which door-to-door canvassing takes place to reach agreement with the City as to the hours and locations of such canvassing. 10. The County will provide current pet license data files (database extractions) to a Contracting City promptly upon request. Data files will include pets owned, owners, addresses, phone numbers, E-mail addresses, violations, license renewal status, and any other relevant or useful data maintained in the County's database on pets licensed within the City's limits. A City's database extraction will be provided in electronic format agreed to by both parties in a timely fashion and in a standard data release format that is easily usable by the City. Document Dated 5-29-12 23 Exhibit B: Control Service District Map The attached map (Exhibit B-1) shows the boundaries of the 3 Control Service Districts as established at the commencement of this Amended and Restated Agreement. The cities and towns included in each Control District are as follows: District 200 (Northern District) District 220 (Eastern District) Shoreline Bellevue Lake Forest Park Mercer Island Kenmore Yarrow Point Woodinville Clyde Hill Kirkland Town of Beaux Arts Redmond Issaquah Sammamish Snoqualmie Duvall North Bend Carnation Newcastle District 500 (Southern District) Tukwila SeaTac Kent Covington Maple Valley Black Diamond Enumclaw The Districts shall each include portions of unincorporated King County as illustrated on Exhibit B-1. Document Dated 5-29-12 24 N i � MIL Ea$dr N I z U T_ y9y'Ae. Z O €P 'ag6g i /n d gz�s�fG N C N W ; °gyp¢ 5g8 .,,.�wrowwn�w.waw.ww �,ww�. O o O Ll 0C N CL �1 S wn� w ' > '— r IIIIwII� a �umilllmuW rt9 ow cm a ri t f e tV/ � @ o w LO o> \ p aw �,r••... g m, www Doti u% d a, 0 Exhibit C Calculation of Estimated Payments The Estimated Payment is the amount, before reconciliation, owed by the City to the County (or owed by the County to the City if the amount calculated is less than $0) for the provision of six months of Animal Services, based on the formulas below. In summary and subject to the more detailed descriptions below, an initial cost allocation is made for Service Year 2013 based on the cost factors described in Part 1 below; costs are offset by various revenues as described in Part 2. An annual reconciliation is completed as described in Part 3. In Service Years 2014 and 2015, the Contracting Parties' allocable costs are adjusted based on: (1) the actual change in total allocable costs over the previous Service Year (subject to an inflator cap), (2) changes in revenues, and (3) to account for annexations (in or out of the Program service area) of areas with a population of 2,500 or more, and for changes in relative population share of all Contracting Parties due to any Latecomer Cities. If the Agreement is extended past 2015, the cost allocation in 2016 will be recalculated in the same manner as for Service Year 2013 and adjusted in 2017 per the process used for Service Years 2014 and 2015. Based on the calculation process described in Parts 1 and 2, an "Estimated Payment" amount owed by each City for each Service Year is determined. Each Estimated Payment covers six months of service. Payment for service is made by each City every June 15 and December 15. Part 1: Service Year 2013 Cost Allocation Process • Control Services costs are to be shared among the 3 geographic Control Districts; one quarter of such costs are allocated to Control District 200, one quarter to Control District 220, and one half are allocated to Control District 500. Each Contracting Party located within a Control District is to be allocated a share of Control District costs based 80%, on the Party's relative share of total Calls for Service within the Control District and 20%, on its relative share of total population within the Control District. • Shelter Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties based 20% on their relative population and 80% on the total shelter intake of animals attributable to each Contracting Party, except that cities contracting for shelter services with PAWS will pay only a population-based charge. Document Dated 5-29-12 26 • Licensing Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties, based 20% on their relative population and 80% on the number of licenses issued to residents of each Contracting Party. Part 2: Revenue and Other Adjustments to the 2013 Cost Allocation. In 2013 and each Service Year thereafter, the costs allocable to each Contracting Party are reduced by various revenues and credits: • Licensing revenue will be attributed to each Contracting Party based on the residency of the individual purchasing the license (see Part 3 for reconciliation of Licensing Revenues). As Licensing Revenue and Non-Licensing Revenues change from year to year, the most recent historical actual data for these amounts will be incorporated to offset costs (See Exhibit C-6 for calculation periods). • Two credits are applicable to various Contracting Cities to reduce the amount of their Estimated Payments: a Transition Funding Credit (fixed at 2013 level, payable annually through 2015) for cities with high per-capita costs and a Shelter Credit (for Contracting Cities with the highest per capita intakes (usage)) (also fixed at a 2013 level, payable annually through 2015). Application of these Credits is limited such that the Estimated Payment cannot fall below zero (before or after the annual Reconciliation calculation). • In addition to the Transition Funding and Shelter credits, in 2013 the County will provide Licensing Revenue Support to nine identified Contracting Cities (selected based on the general goal of keeping 2013 costs the same or below 2012 costs). In exchange for certain in-kind support, these "Licensing Revenue Support Cities" are assured in 2013 of receiving an identified amount of additional licensing revenue or credit equivalent (the "Licensing Revenue Target"). In 2014 and 2015, all Contracting Cities may request licensing revenue support by entering into a separate licensing support contract with the County (Exhibit F): this support is subject to availability of County staff, with priority going to the nine Licensing Revenue Support Cities, provided that, Licensing Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target over $20,000/year will be assured such service in 2013-2015 by entering into a licensing support contract by September 1, 2012. • As New Regional Revenues are received by the County to support the Animal Services Program, those Revenues shall be allocated as follows: Document Dated 5-29-12 27 o Half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied to reduce allocable Control Services Costs, Shelter Services Costs, and Licensing Services Costs (in 2013, by 17%,, 27%, and 6%,, respectively, of total New Regional Revenues; in 2014 and 2015 the 50%, reduction is simply made against Total Allocable Costs). o The remaining half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied in the following order of priority: (a) to offset amounts expended by the County as Transition Funding Credits, Shelter Credits and unreimbursed licensing revenue support; (b) to offset other County Animal Services Program costs that are not allocated in the cost model; (c) to reduce on a pro-rata basis up to 100% of the costs allocated to each Contracting Party by the population factor of the cost allocation formulas (20'%) with the intent of reducing or eliminating the population-based cost allocation; and (d) if any funds remain thereafter, as an offset against each Contracting Party's final reconciled payment obligation. Items(c) and (d) above are unlikely to arise during the 3 year term of the Agreement and shall be calculated only at Reconciliation. • In Service Years 2014 and 2015, allocable costs are adjusted for each Contracting Party based on the actual increase or decrease in allocable costs from year to year for the whole Program. Total Budgeted Allocable Costs cannot increase by more than the Annual Budget Inflator Cap. The Annual Budget Inflator Cap is the rate of inflation (based on the annual change in the September CPI-U for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area over the rate the preceding year) plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County (including the unincorporated area and all Contracting Cities). • In all Service Years, costs are also adjusted for annexations (in or out of the Program service area) of areas with a population greater of 2,500 or more and the shift in relative population shares among all Contracting Parties as a result of any Latecomer Cities. Part 3: Reconciliation • Estimated Payments are reconciled to reflect actual revenues as well as changes in population attributable to annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more (in or out of the Program) and the shifts in relative population among all Contracting Parties as a result of any Latecomer Cities. The Reconciliation occurs Document Dated 5-29-12 28 by June 30 of the following calendar year. The Reconciliation calculation and payment process is described in Exhibit D. • The receipt of Transition Funding Credits or Shelter Credits can never result in the amount of the Estimated Reconciliation Adjustment Payment falling below $0. • If a jurisdiction's licensing revenues exceed its net costs payable under this Agreement, then in the annual reconciliation process, the excess licensing revenue is reallocated pro rata amongst all Contracting Parties which will otherwise incur net costs; provided that, the determination of net costs shall be adjusted as follows: (1) for a Contracting City purchasing shelter services from PAWS, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid by such City to PAWS; and (2) for a Contracting City purchasing Enhanced Control Services per Exhibit E, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid for such services. Part 4: Estimated Payment Calculation Formulas For Service Year 2013:1 EP = [(EC + ES + EL) — (ER + T + V)] = 2 For Service Years 2014 and 2015: EP = [(BxLF) — (ER +T + V)] = 2 Where: "EP" is the Estimated Payment. For Contracting Cities receiving a Transition Credit or Shelter Credit, the value of EP may not be less $0. "EC" or "Estimated Control Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving "EC." "ES" or "Estimated Shelter Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budged Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving "ES." This formula also applies to Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended. The EP formula for Years 2014 and 2015 would apply to Service Years after 2016. Document Dated 5-29-12 29 "EL" or "Estimated Licensing Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving "EL." "ER" is Estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City. For purposes of determining the Estimated Payment in Year 2013, ER is based on the number of each type of active license issued to City residents in years 2011 (the "Calculation Period"). Exhibit C-2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 Licensing Revenue; the numbers in this exhibit are subject to Reconciliation by June 30, 2012. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities identified in Exhibit C-5, or other Contracting Cities which have entered into a Licensing Support Contract per Exhibit F, ER is increased by adding the amount of revenue, if any, estimated to be derived as a result of licensing revenue support provided to the City (the "Licensing Revenue Target" or "RT"); this amount is also shown in the column captioned "Estimated Revenue from Proposed Licensing Support" on Exhibit C-1). License Revenue that cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g., License Revenue associated with incomplete address information), which generally represents a very small fraction of overall revenue, is allocated amongst the Parties based on their respective percentages of ER as compared to Total Licensing Revenue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "ER" may be based on a estimated amount of licensing for the Service Year for the City if, in the reasonable judgment of the County, an estimated Licensing Revenue amount can be proposed that is likely to more closely approximate the actual Licensing Revenue for the Service Year than the data from the Calculation Period;provided that the use of any estimates shall be subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The County shall work with the Joint City-County Committee to develop estimated Licensing Revenue amounts for all Contracting Cities for the upcoming Service Year. If the Joint City County Committee develops a consensus proposal (agreement shall be based on the consensus of those Contracting Cities present at the Joint City/County meeting in which Licensing Revenue estimates are presented in preparation for the September 1 Preliminary Estimated Payment Calculation notification), it shall be used in developing the September 1 Preliminary Estimated Payment Calculation. If a consensus is not reached, the County shall apply the actual Licensing Revenue from the Calculation Period for the Service Year to determine the Preliminary Estimated Payment. For the Final Estimated Payment Calculation (due December 15), the County may revisit the previous estimate with the Joint City-County Committee and seek to develop a final consensus revenue estimate. If a consensus is not reached, the County shall apply the Actual Licensing Revenue from the applicable Calculation Period in the calculation of the Final Estimated Payment. "T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year calculated per Exhibit C-4. Document Dated 5-29-12 30 "V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year calculated per Exhibit C-4. "B" is the 'Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs' estimated for the Service Year for the provision of Animal Services which are allocated among all the Contracting Parties for the purposes of determining the Estimated Payment. The Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs are calculated as the Budgeted Total Allocable Costs (subject to the Annual Budget Inflator Cap) less Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue and less 50% of Estimated New Regional Revenues. The Budgeted Total Allocable Costs exclude any amount expended by the County as Transition Funding Credits, or Shelter Credits (described in Exhibit C-4), or to provide Licensing Revenue Support (described in Section 7 and Exhibit C-5). A preliminary calculation (by service area—Control, Shelter, Licensing) of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Allocable Costs and Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue for purposes of calculating the Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments is set forth in Exhibit C-3. "LF" is the "Program Load Factor" attributable to the City. LF has two components, one fixed, and one subject to change each Service Year and at Reconciliation. The first, fixed component relates to the City's share of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs: it is the City's 2013 Service Year Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (See Column 6 of Exhibit C-1) expressed as a percentage of the Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs for 2013. The pre- commitment estimate of LF appears in column 7 of Exhibit C-1. This component of LF (as determined based on the Final 2013 Estimated Payment) remains constant for Service Years 2014 and 2015. The second component of LF relates to annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more or to Latecomer Cities. This second component is calculated as described in the definition of "Population," below. "Total Licensing Revenue" means all revenue received by the County's Animal Services Program attributable to the sale of pet licenses excluding late fees. With respect to each Contracting Party, the amount of "Licensing Revenue" is the revenue generated by the sale of pet licenses to residents of the jurisdiction. (With respect to the County, the jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of King County.) "Total Non-Licensing Revenue" means all revenue from fine, forfeitures, and all other fees and charges imposed by the County's Animal Services program in connection with the operation of the Program, but excluding Total Licensing Revenue, Estimated New Regional Revenues and Designated Donations. Document Dated 5-29-12 31 "Estimated New Regional Revenues" ("ENR") are revenues projected to be received by the County specifically for support of Animal Services which result from regional marketing campaigns (thus excluding local licensing canvassing efforts pursuant to Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation and entrepreneurial activities, except where revenues from these sources are designated for specific purposes within the Animal Services Program. Calculation and allocation of Estimated and Actual New Regional Revenues are further described in Exhibit C-4. For Service Year 2013, Estimated New Regional Revenues are assumed to be zero. If New Regional Revenues are received in 2013, they will be accounted for in the reconciliation of 2013 Payments. ENR excludes Designated Donations, Total Non-Licensing Revenue and Total Licensing Revenue. "Designated Donations" mean donations from individuals or other third parties to the County made for the purpose of supporting specific operations, programs or facilities within the Animal Services Program. "Licensing Revenue Support" means activities or funding to be undertaken in specific cities to enhance licensing revenues, per Section 7, Exhibit C-5 and Exhibit F. "Annual Budget Inflator Cap" means the maximum amount by which the Budgeted Total Allocable Costs may be increased from one Service Year to the next Service Year, and year to year, which is calculated as the rate of inflation (based on the annual change in the September CPI-U for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area over the rate the preceding year) plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County (including the unincorporated area and all Contracting Cities), as identified by comparing the two most recently published July OFM city and county population reports. The cost allocations to individual services (e.g. Control Services, Shelter Services or Licensing Services) or specific items within those services may be increased or decreased from year to year in so long as the Budgeted Total Annual Allocable Costs do not exceed the Annual Budget Inflator Cap. "Service Year" is the calendar year in which Animal Services are/were provided. "Calculation Period" is the time period from which data is used to calculate the Estimated Payment. The Calculation Period differs by formula component and Service Year. Exhibit C-6 sets forth in table form the Calculation Periods for all formula factors for Service Years 2013, 2014 and 2015. "Population" with respect to any Contracting Party for Service Year 2013 means the population number derived from the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) most recent annually published report of population used for purposes of allocating state shared revenues in the subsequent calendar year (typically published by OFM each July, Document Dated 5-29-12 32 reflecting final population estimates as of April of the same calendar year). For each Service Year, the OFM reported population will be adjusted for annexations of 2,500 or more residents known to be occurring after April, 2012 and before the end of the Service Year. For example, when the final Estimated Payment calculation for 2013 is provided on December 15, 2012, the population numbers used will be from the OFM report issued in July 2012 and will be adjusted for all annexations of 2,500 or more residents that occurred (or are known to be occurring) between April 2012 and December 31, 2013. In any Service Year, if: (1) annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more people occurs to impact the population within the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party; or (2) a Latecomer City is brought under contract with the County, these changes shall be accounted for in the calculation of the Estimated Payment for such Service Year by adjusting the "Program Load Factor" (or "LF") for each Contracting Party. Such adjustment shall be made at the next occurring possibility (e.g., at calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment, Final Estimated Payment, or Reconciliation, whichever is soonest). The adjustment in LF will be made on a pro rata basis to reflect the portion of the year in which the population change was in effect. • In the case of an annexation, the LF calculation will consider the time the annexed area was in the Contracting Party's jurisdiction and the portion of the year in which the area was not in such Party's jurisdiction, as well as the relative shift in population (if any) attributable solely to the annexation as between all Contracting Parties, by adding (or subtracting) to the LF for each Contracting Party an amount that is 20%, (reflecting the general allocation of cost under the Agreement based on population) of the change in population for each Contracting Party (expressed as a percentage of the Contracting Party's population as compared to the total population for all Contracting Parties) derived by comparing the Final 2013 Estimated Payment population percentage (LF) to the population percentage after considering the annexation. The population of an annexed area will be as determined by the Boundary Review Board, in consultation with the annexing city. The population of the unincorporated area within any District will be determined by the County's demographer. • In the case of a Latecomer City, the population shall be similarly adjusted among all Contracting Parties in the manner described above for annexations, by considering the change in population between all Contracting Parties attributable solely to the Latecomer City becoming a Contracting Party. Exhibit C-1 shows the calculation of Pre-Commitment EP for Service Year 2013, assuming that the County and all Cities that have expressed interest in signing this Agreement as of May 16, 2012, do in fact approve and sign the Agreement and as a result the Minimum Contract Requirements with respect to all such Cities and the County are met per Section 15. Document Dated 5-29-12 33 Component Calculation Formulas (used in Service Year 2013): EC is calculated as follows: EC =J[(C x .5) x .8J x CFSJ +J[(C x .5) x .2J x D-PopJ Where: "C" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Control Services in the Service Year, less the Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue attributable to Control Services in the Service Year (for example, fines issued in the field) and less 17% of Estimated New Regional Revenues ("ENR"). For purposes of determining the Pre-Commitment Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost is $1,690,447, calculated as shown on Exhibit C-3, and shall be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payment for 2013 and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015. "CFS" is the total annual number of Calls for Service for the Service Year for Control Services originating within the City expressed as a percentage of the CFS for all Contract Parties within the same Control District. A Call for Service is defined as a request from an individual, business or jurisdiction for a control service response to a location within the City, or a response initiated by an Animal Control Officer in the field, which is entered into the County's data system (at the Animal Services call center or the sheriff's dispatch center acting as back-up to the call center) as a request for service. Calls for information, hang-ups and veterinary transfers are not included in the calculation of Calls for Service. A response by an Animal Control Officer pursuant to an Enhanced Control Services Contract will not be counted as a Call for Service. For purposes of determining the Estimated Payment in 2013, the Calculation Period for CFS is calendar year 2011 actual data. Exhibit C-2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 CFS used to determine the Pre- Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment; the numbers in this Exhibit C-2 are subject to Reconciliation by June 30, 2012. "D-Pop" is the Population of the City, expressed as a percentage of the Population of all jurisdictions within the applicable Control District. Document Dated 5-29-12 34 ES for Service Year 2013 is calculated as follows: If, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the City has entered into a contract for shelter services with the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) in Lynnwood, WA, then, for so long as such contract remains in effect, the City will not pay a share of shelter costs associated with shelter usage ("A" as defined below) and instead the Estimated Payment will include a population-based charge only, reflecting the regional shelter benefits nonetheless received by such City, calculated as follows (the components of this calculation are defined as described below). ES = (S x.2 x Pop) If the City does not qualify for the population-based shelter charge only, ES is determined as follows: ES = (Sx .2x Pop) + (S x .8 x A) Where: "S" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Shelter Services less Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue attributable to Shelter operations (i.e., adoption fees, microchip fees, impound fees, owner-surrender fees, from all Contracting Parties) and less 27%, of Estimated New Regional Revenues (ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of determining the Pre-Commitment Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost is $2,707,453, calculated as shown on Exhibit C-3, and shall be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payments for 2013 and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015. "Pop" is the population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of all Contracting Parties. "A" is the total number of animals that were: (1) picked up by County Animal Control Officers from within the City, (2) delivered by a City resident to the County shelter, or (3) delivered to the shelter that are owned by a resident of the City expressed as a percentage of the total number of animals in the County Shelter during the Calculation Period. For purposes of the 2013 Estimated Payment, the Calculation Period for "A" is calendar year 2011. Exhibit C-2 shows a preliminary estimate of "A" for 2011 used to determine the Pre- Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this exhibit are subject to Reconciliation by June 30, 2012. Document Dated 5-29-12 35 EL for Service Year 2013 is calculated as follows: EL = (Lx .2x Pop) + (Lx .8xI) Where: "L" is the Budgeted Net Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for License Services in the Service Year less Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue attributable to License Services (for example, pet license late fees) in the Service Year and less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenues (ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of determining the Pre-Commitment Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Licensing Cost is $660,375, calculated as shown on Exhibit C-3, and shall be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and final Estimated Payments for 2013 and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015. "Pop" is the Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all Contracting Parties. "I" is the number of active paid regular pet licenses (e.g., excluding 'buddy licenses" or temporary licenses) issued to City residents during the Calculation Period. For purposes of calculating the Estimated Payment in 2013, the Calculation Period for "I" is calendar year 2011. Exhibit C-2 shows a preliminary estimate of "I" to be used for calculating the Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this Exhibit are subject to reconciliation by June 30, 2012. Document Dated 5-29-12 36 y22} \3J \ ! M- f M---��\ ----- }9o , - - / / \ } 4 / / ]! _: } - f;j �!®- \ \ m 4 N m I SW NEM22 ON \ «g,ees-- zs EEG 4 lw m a »zz»\ (: \ \ \ { \ \ / \\ IE /\ ~ § IN § § \ \ { } � ) � : � \ ; { \ \ \ \ \« \ \ ) \\ \ \ \ G g \ ) Oc cm \\®log { / :.,:: Exhibit C-2 Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing Data for Jurisdictions, Used to Derive the Pre-Commitment 2013 Estimated Source:Wash.St.Office of Financial Management,KC Office of Management and Budget,Regional Animal Services of KC Date:February 22,2012 Proposed 2011 Estimated 2013 Estimated 2013 Estimated 2013 District Jurisdiction Population Calls Intakes Licenses Bothell Carnation 1,780 13 5 160 Duvall 6,715 34 23 712 Estimated Unincorporated King County 65,642 240 see total below see total below Kenmore 20,780 116 0 2,021 N Kirkland 80,7381 2301 109 7,855 Lake Forest Park 12,610 70 0 1,666 Redmond 55,150 87 47 3,980 Sammamish 46,940 85 36 3,970 Shoreline 53,200 281 0 4,967 Woodinville 10,940 34 0 998 Beaux Arts 300 0 0 33 Bellevue 123,400 317 185 9,380 Clyde Hill 2,985 3 3 248 Estimated Unincorporated King County 87,572 418 see total below see total below N Issaquah 30,690 132 58 1,942 Mercer Island 22,710 21 11 1,727 Newcastle 10,410 40 13 520 North Bend 51830 42 26 535 Snoqualmie 10,950 27 10 842 Yarrow Pt 1,005 1 0 100 Kent(Includes Panther Lake Annexation) 118,200 614 1,454 8,555 SeaTac 27,110 200 339 1,544 Tukwila 19,050 121 200 1,065 Auburn 0 0 0 0 N Black Diamond 4,160 18 24 340 Covington 17,640 132 145 1,642 Enumclaw 10,920 110 101 872 Estimated Unincorporated King County 100,333 783 see total below see total below ,Maple Valle 22,930 89 111 1,919 City Totals 782,7851 2,8171 2,900 57,593 King County Unincorporated Area Totals 187,9051 1,4411 1,425 27,175 TOTALS 970,690 1 4,258 1 4,325 84,768 Note: Usage data from 2011 activity. License count excludes Senior Lifetime Licenses Document Dated 5-29-12 39 Exhibit C-3 Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs This Exhibit Shows the Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs to derive Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments. All values shown are based on annualized costs and revenues. The staffing levels incorporated in this calculation are for year 2013 only and except as otherwise expressly provided in the Agreement may change from year to year as the County determines may be appropriate to achieve efficiencies, etc. Control Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs The calculation of Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Control Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2012 dollars). Cost Methodology 1 Direct Service Management Staff Costs $148,361 2 Direct Service Field Staff Costs $725,879 3 Call Center Direct Service Staff Costs $229,697 4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs $80,891 5 Facilities Costs $8,990 6 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment $17,500 7 Printing, Publications, and Postage $34,000 8 Medical Costs $22,500 9 Other Services $80,000 10 Transportation $141,904 11 Communications Costs $38,811 12 IT Costs and Services $50,626 13 Misc Direct Costs $41,900 14 General Fund Overhead Costs $15,842 15 Division Overhead Costs $110,490 16 Other Overhead Costs $23,096 2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Control Services Cost $1,770,487 17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue $80,040 Attributable to Control Services 18 Less 17% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013 0 2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost $1,690,447 Document Dated 5-29-12 40 NOTES: 4 These additional salary costs support complete response to calls at the end of the day, limited response to emergency calls after hours, and extra help during peak call times. 5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for a portion (5%) of the Kent Shelter (which houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as providing a base station for field officers). Excludes all costs associated with the Crossroads facility. 6 This item includes the office supplies required for both the call center as well as a wide variety of non-computer equipment and supplies related to animal control field operations (e.g.,uniforms, tranquilizer guns, boots, etc.). 7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials used in the field for animal control. 8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring emergency services. 9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but consist primarily of consulting vets and laboratory costs associated with cruelty cases. 10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance,repair, and replacement of the animal care and control vehicles and cabs, fuel, and reimbursement for occasional job-related use of a personal vehicle. 11 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and pager use. 12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct services costs. Excludes approximately $50,000 in service costs associated with mainframe systems. 13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal control costs not listed above including but not limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks. 14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model. 15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of division administration non-labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant division director, administration,program manager, finance officer,payroll/accounts payable, and human resource officer. 16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications,finance, and property services. 17 Non-licensing revenue attributable to field operations include animal control violation penalties, charges for field pickup of deceased/owner relinquished animals, and fines for failure to license. Document Dated 5-29-12 41 Shelter Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs The calculation of Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Shelter Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2012 dollars). Cost Methodology 1 Direct Service Management Staff Costs $214,815 2 Direct Service Shelter Staff Costs $1,168,436 3 Direct Service Clinic Staff Costs $286,268 4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs $159,682 5 Facilities Costs $170,814 6 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment $94,200 7 Printing, Publications, and Postage $20,000 8 Medical Costs $127,500 9 Other Services $122,500 10 Transportation $10,566 11 Communications Costs $6,200 12 IT Costs and Services $51,360 13 Misc Direct Costs $60,306 14 General Fund Overhead Costs $113,614 15 Division Overhead Costs $176,572 16 Other Overhead Costs $37,124 2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Shelter Services Cost $2,819,960 17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue $112,507 Attributable to Shelter Services 18 Less 27% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013 0 2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost $2,707,453 NOTES: 5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the majority (95%) of the Kent Shelter (which also houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as providing a base station for field officers). It excludes all costs associated with the Crossroads facility. 6 This item includes the office supplies as well as a wide variety of non-computer equipment and supplies related to animal care (e.g., uniforms, food, litter, etc.). 7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials used at the shelter. 8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring emergency services as well as the cost for consulting vets, laboratory costs, medicine, and vaccines. Document Dated 5-29-12 42 9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but include costs such as shipping of food provided free of charge and sheltering of large animals. 10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of and fuel for the animal care and control vehicles used by the shelter to facilitate adoptions, as well as reimbursement for occasional job-related use of a personal vehicle. 11 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and pager use. 12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct services costs. 13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal care costs not listed above including but not limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks. 14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model. 15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of division administration non-labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant division director, administration, program manager, finance officer,payrolUaccounts payable, and human resource officer. 16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications,finance, and property services. 17 Non-licensing revenue attributable to sheltering operations include impound fees, microchip fees, adoption fees, and owner relinquished euthanasia costs. Document Dated 5-29-12 43 Licensing Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs The calculation of Pre-Commitment Estimated 2013 Licensing Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2012 dollars). Cost Methodology 1 Direct Service Management Staff Costs $52,917 2 Direct Service Licensing Staff Costs $346,523 3 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs $26,295 4 Facilities Costs $13,100 5 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment $3,300 6 Printing, Publications, and Postage $74,600 7 Other Services $14,500 8 Communications Costs $2,265 9 IT Costs and Services $77,953 10 Misc Direct Costs $2,000 11 General Fund Overhead Costs $9,884 12 Division Overhead Costs $39,280 13 Other Overhead Costs $11,023 2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Licensing Services Cost $673,640 14 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non-Licensing Revenue $13,265 Attributable to Licensing Services 15 Less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenue -0- 2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost $660,375 NOTES: 4 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the portion of the King County Administration building occupied by the pet licensing staff and associated records. 5 This item includes the office supplies required for the licensing call center. 6 This cost element consists of printing, publication, and distribution costs for various materials used to promote licensing of pets, including services to prepare materials for mailing. 7 Services for animal licensing operations include the purchase of tags and monthly fees for online pet licensing hosting. 8 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and pager use. 9 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct services costs. Excludes approximately $120,000 in service costs associated with mainframe systems. 10 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all pet licensing costs not listed above including but not limited to training, certification, transportation, and bad checks. Document Dated 5-29-12 44 11 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model. 12 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of division administration non-labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant division director, administration, program manager, finance officer,payrolUaccounts payable, and human resource officer. 13 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications,finance, and property services. 14 Non-licensing revenue attributable to licensing operations consists of licensing late fees. Document Dated 5-29-12 45 Exhibit C-4 Calculation and Allocation of Transition Funding Credit ("T"), Shelter Credit ("V"), and Estimated New Regional Revenue ("ENR") A. Transition Funding Credit The Transition Funding Credit as originally calculated in the 2010 Agreement offset costs to certain Contracting Cities that would have otherwise paid the highest per capita costs for Animal Services in 2010. The credit was scheduled on a declining basis over four years (2010-2013). In this Agreement, the Contracting Cities qualifying for this credit are listed in Table 1 below; these cities will receive the credit at the level calculated for 2013 in the 2010 Agreement for Service Years 2013, 2014 and 2015, provided that, application of the credit can never result in the Estimated Payment Amount being less than zero ($0) (i.e., cannot result in the County owing the City an Estimated Payment). The allocation of the Transition Funding Credit is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Transition Funding Credit—Annual Amount to be allocated each year in the period from 2013-2015 Jurisdiction Transition Funding Credit Carnation $552 North Bend $1,376 Kent $110,495 SeaTac $7,442 Tukwila $5,255 Black Diamond $1,209 Covington $5,070 Enumclaw $11,188 Maple Valley 1 $6,027 Note: The Transitional Funding Credit is the same regardless of which cities sign the Agreement. B. Shelter Credit The Shelter Credit is designed to offset costs for those Contracting Cities whose per capita shelter intakes ("A") exceed the average for all Contracting Parties. A total of$750,000 will be applied as a credit in each of the Service Years 2013-2015 to Contracting Cities whose per capita average shelter intakes ("A") exceeds the average for all Contracting Parties; provided that application of the Shelter Credit can never result in the Estimated Payment amount being less than zero ($0) (i.e., cannot result in the County owing the City an Estimated Payment.) The 2013 Shelter Credit was determined based on estimated animal Document Dated 5-29-12 46 intakes ("A") for Calendar Year 2011 as shown on Exhibit C-2. The $750,000 was allocated between every Contracting City with animal intakes over the estimated 2011 Program average, based on each Contracting City's relative per capita animal intakes in excess of the average for all Contracting Parties. The Shelter Credit will be paid at the 2013 level in Service Years 2014 and 2015. The County will consider providing the Shelter Credit in Service Years 2016 and 2017 at the same level as for Service Year 2013. Table 3: Annual Shelter Credit Allocation-2013 through 2015 City Shelter Credit North Bend $586 Kent $495,870 SeaTac $116,611 Tukwila $61,987 Black Diamond $3,263 Covington $36,409 Enumclaw $28,407 Maple Valley $6,867 C. New Regional Revenue: Estimation and Allocation Goal New Regional Revenue for each Service Year shall be estimated as part of the development of the Estimated Payment calculations for such Service Year. The goal of the estimate shall be to reduce the amount of Estimated Payments where New Regional Revenue to be received in the Service Year can be calculated with reasonable certainty. The Estimated New Regional Revenue will be reconciled annually to account for actual New Regional Revenue received, per Exhibit D. Calculation of Estimated New Regional Revenue (ENR) 1. The value of the Estimated New Regional Revenue for Service Year 2013 is zero. 2. For Service Years after 2013, the Estimated New Regional Revenue will be set at the amount the County includes for such revenue in its adopted budget for the Service Year. For purposes of the Preliminary Estimated Payment calculation, the County will include its best estimate for New Regional Revenue at the time the calculation is issued, after first presenting such estimate to the Joint City County Committee for its input. Document Dated 5-29-12 47 Application of ENR 1. For Service Years 2013 and 2016, 50%, of the Estimated New Regional Revenue is incorporated into the calculations of EC and ES and EL as described in Exhibit C, specifically: a. 17%, of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost. b. 27%, of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost. c. 6%, of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost. These amounts are reconciled as against actual New Regional Revenue (ENRA) in the annual Reconciliation process. In 2014, 2015 and 2017 the 50%, is simply deducted against Budgeted Total Allocable Costs to derive Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs. 2. For each Service Year, the remaining 50%, of Estimated New Regional Revenue is first applied to offset County contributions to the Program, in the following order of priority. a. Offset payments made by the County to fund Transition Funding Credits, Shelter Credits, Impact Mitigation Credits (if any) and un-reimbursed Licensing Revenue Support. b. Offset County funding of Animal Services Program costs that are not included in the cost allocation model described in Exhibit C, specifically, costs of: i. The medical director and volunteer coordinator staff at the Kent Shelter. ii. Other County-sponsored costs for Animal Services that are not included in the cost models described in Exhibit C. c. In the event any of the 50%, of Estimated New Regional Revenue remains after applying it to items (a) and (b) above, the remainder ("Residual New Regional Revenue") shall be held in a reserve and applied to the benefit of all Contracting Parties as part of the annual Reconciliation process, in the following order of priority: i. First, to reduce pro-rata up to 20% of each Contracting Party's Estimated Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (611, column in the spreadsheet at Exhibit C-1), thereby reducing up to all cost allocations based on population. This is the factor "V in the Reconciliation formula. ii. Second, to reduce pro rata the amount owing from each Contracting Party with net final costs> 0 after consideration of all other factors in the Reconciliation formula. Document Dated 5-29-12 48 Offsets described in (a) and (b) above do not impact the calculation of Estimated Payments or the Reconciliation of Estimated Payments since they are outside the cost model. The allocations described in (c) above, if any, will be considered in the annual Reconciliation as described in Exhibit D. Document Dated 5-29-12 49 Exhibit C-5 Licensing Revenue Support A. The Contracting Cities that will receive licensing revenue support in 2013 are listed below (collectively, these nine cities are referred to as the "Licensing Revenue Support Cities"). These Cities have been selected by comparing the estimated 2013 Net Final Costs shown in Exhibit C-1 to the 2012 Estimated Net Final CosE2 Where the 2013 Net Final Cost estimate was higher than the 2012 estimate, the difference was identified as the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target. B. For any Licensing Revenue Support City in Table 1 whose Preliminary 2013 Estimated Payment is lower than the Pre-Commitment Estimate shown in Exhibit C-1, the Licensing Revenue Target ("RT") and the Revenue Goal ("RG") will be the reduced by an amount equivalent to the reduction between the Pre-Commitment and Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for 2013. Table 1: 2013 Licensing Revenue Support Cities, Licensing Revenue Targets and Revenue Goals* City 2013 Base Year Revenue Revenue Goal Licensing Revenue (2011 Estimate per "RG" (total) Target "RT" Exhibit C-2) (increment) 'Base Amount" City of Carnation $966 $4,752 $5,718 City of Duvall $7,658 $21,343 $29,001 City of Kirkland $23,853 $208,000 $231,853 City of Bellevue $34,449 $273,931 $308,380 City of Newcastle $2,599 $15,271 $17,870 City of North Bend $6,463 $15,694 $22,157 City of Black Diamond $2,001 $10,185 $12,186 City of Enumclaw $5,973 $25,307 $31,280 City of Maple Valley $6,956 $56,628 $63,584 *Amounts in this table are subject to adjustment per Paragraph B above. C. The 2013 Licensing Revenue Target ("RT") is the amount each City in Table 1 will receive in 2013, either in the form of additional licensing revenues over the Base Year amount or as a Licensing Revenue Credit ("LRC") applied at Reconciliation. For Contracting Cities that purchase shelter services from PAWS,the target was based on the Pre-Commitment 2013 Estimated Payment calculated in February 2012 during contract negotiations. Document Dated 5-29-12 50 D. As further described in Section 7 and Exhibit C-5, licensing revenue support services include the provision of County staff and materials support (which may include use of volunteers or other in-kind support) as determined necessary by the County to generate the Licensing Revenue Target. E. In 2014 and 2015, any Licensing Revenue Support City or other Contracting City may request licensing revenue support services from the County under the terms of Exhibit F. Provision of such services is subject to the County determining it has capacity to perform such services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Licensing Revenue Support City for which RT is in excess of$20,000 per year may receive licensing revenue support service in all three years, but only if by September 1, 2012, it commits to providing in-kind support in all three Services Years by executing the contract in Exhibit F with respect to all 3 Service Years (2013, 2014 and 2015). Allocation of licensing revenue support services in 2014 and 2015 will be prioritized first to meet the County's contractual commitment, if any, to a Licensing Revenue Support City that has entered into a 3-year agreement for such service. Thereafter, service shall be allocated to Licensing Revenue Support Cities requesting such service on first-come, first-served basis; and thereafter to any other Contracting City requesting such service on a first-come, first-served basis. Table 2: Calculation of Estimated Payments and Licensing Revenue Credits for Licensing Revenue Support Cities For Service Year 2013: • The Estimated Payment calculation will include the 2013 Licensing Revenue Support Target ("RT"), if any, for the City per Table 1 above in the calculation of Estimated Licensing Revenues ("ER") (these amounts are shown in separate columns on Exhibit C-1). • At Reconciliation: o For Cities with a RT> $20,000, Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 ("AR2013') will be determined by allocating 65%, of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine AR2m3 o if Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 ("AR2013') >_ Revenue Goal ("RG"), then no additional credit is payable to the City ("LRC" = $0) o If AR2013 < RG, then the difference (RG-AR) is the Licensing Revenue Credit ("LRC") included in the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount provided that, for Cities whose RT>$20,000, 350% of Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase ("LRC") when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation, and provided further, that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target for the City. Document Dated 5-29-12 51 For Service Year 2014, if the City and County have executed a Licensing Support Contract per Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing additional in-kind services in order to generate licensing revenue support in 2014, then: • The Estimated Payment for 2014 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue ("AR") for 2012 or the Revenue Goal (RG), whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table 1 for Licensing Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may agree in the Licensing Support Contract. • At Reconciliation: o For Cities with a RT> $20,000, AR 2014 will be determined by allocating 65% of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine AR2014 o If Actual Licensing Revenue in 2014 is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2014 >_ RG), then • no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC= $0), and • The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of: (a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2014 to the City (as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2014), or (b) the amount by which AR2014 >RG. o If AR2014 < RG, then the difference (RG-AR2014) is LRC. The LRC amount is added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount, provided that, for Cities whose RT>$20,000, 35% of Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase ("LRC") a when the value of ANFCO is being calculated at Reconciliation, and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target for the City. For Service Year 2015, the process and calculation shall be the same as for 2014, e.g.: if the City and County have executed Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing additional in-kind services in order to generate Licensing Revenue Support in 2015, then: • The Estimated Payment for 2015 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue ("AR") for 2013 (excluding LRC paid for Service Year 2013) or RG, whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table 1 for Licensing Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may agree in the Licensing Support Contract. • At Reconciliation: o For Cities with a RT> $20,000, AR 2015 will be determined by allocating 65% of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine AlZnn o If Actual 2015 Licensing Revenue is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2015>_ Document Dated 5-29-12 52 RG), then • no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC= $0), and • The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of (a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2015 to the City (as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2015), or (b) the amount by which AR2015 >RG. o If AR2015 < RG, then the difference (RG-AR2015) is LRC. The LRC amount is added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount;provided that, for Cities whose RT>$20,000, 35% of Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase ("LRC") when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation, and and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target for the City. Document Dated 5-29-12 53 Exhibit C-6: Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population Components This Exhibit restates in summary table form the Calculation Periods used for calculating the usage and population components in the formulas to derive Estimated Payments. See Exhibit C for complete formulas and definitions of the formula components. ER is estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City CFS is total annual number of Calls for Service originating in the City A is the number of animals in the shelter attributable to the City I is the number of active paid regular pet licenses issued to City residents ENR is the New Regional Revenue estimated to be received during the Service Year Pop is Population of the City expressed as a percentage of all Contracting Parties; D-Pop is Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all jurisdictions within a Control District Calculation Periods -- Service Year 2013 Component Preliminary Estimated 2013 Reconciliation Payment Estimated 2013 Payment (final) Amount Payment (published (published December 15 (determined June 2014) August 2012) 2012) ER Actual2011 Same Actual 2013 (Estimated Revenue) CFS Actual2011 Same N/A (Calls for Service) A Actual2011 Same N/A (Animal intakes) I (Issued Pet Actual 2011 Same N/A Licenses) ENR Estimated 2013 ($0) Estimated 2013 ($0) Actual 2013 (Estimated New Regional Revenue) Pop, D-Pop July 2012 OFM report, Same,adjusted for all Same,adjusted for all (Population) adjusted for annexations>_2,500 annexations>_2,500 annexations>_2,500 occurring (and occurring (and Latecomer occurring (and Latecomer Cities joining) Cities joining) after April Latecomer Cities after April 2012 and and before the end of 2013 joining) after April before the end of 2013 2012 and before the Document Dated 5-29-12 54 end of 2013. Calculation Periods: Service Year 2014 Component Preliminary Estimated 2014 Reconciliation Estimated 2014 Payment (published Payment Amount Payment (published December 2013) (determined June 2015) September 2013) ER Actual 2012 Same Actual 2014 CFS N/A N/A N/A A N/A N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A ENR Estimated 2014 Estimated 2014 Actual 2014 Pop, D-Pop July 2012 OFM report, Same,adjusted for all Same,adjusted for all adjusted for all annexations >_2,500 annexations>_2,500 (and annexations>_2,500 known to take effect(and Latecomer Cities joining) known to take effect Latecomer Cities joining) occurring after April 2012 (and Latecomer Cities after April 2012 and and before the end of joining) after April before the end of 2014 2014 2012 and before the end of 2014. Calculation Periods: Service Year 2015 Component Preliminary Estimated 2015 Reconciliation Estimated 2015 Payment (published Payment Amount Payment (published December 2014) (determined June 2016) September 2014) ER Actual 2013 Same Actual 2015 CFS N/A N/A N/A A N/A N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A ENR Estimated 2015 Estimated 2015 Actual 2015 Pop, D-Pop July 2012 OFM report, Same,adjusted for all Same, adjusted for all adjusted for all annexations >_2,500 annexations >_2,500 annexations>_2,500 known to take effect(and occurring (and known take effect Latecomer Cities joining) Latecomer Cities joining) (and Latecomer Cities after April 2012 and after April 2012 and joining) after April before the end of 2015 before the end of 2015 2012 and before the end of 2015. If the Agreement is extended past 2015 for an additional 2 years, the calculation periods for 2016 shall be developed in a manner comparable to Service Year 2013, and for 2017 shall be developed in a manner comparable to year 2014. Document Dated 5-29-12 55 Exhibit C-7 Payment and Calculation Schedule Service Year 2013 Item Date Preliminary estimate of 2013 Estimated August 1, 2012 Payments provided to City by County Final Estimated 2013 Payment calculation December 15, 2012 provided to City by County First 2013 Estimated Payment due June 15, 2013 Second 2013 Estimated Payment due December 15, 2013 2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before June 30, 2014 calculated 2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before August 15, 2014 payable Service Year 2014 Item Date Preliminary estimate of 2014 Estimated September 1, 2013 Payments provided to City by County Final Estimated 2014 Payment calculation December 15, 2013 provided to City by Count First 2014 Estimated Payment due June 15, 2014 Second 2014 Estimated Payment due December 15, 2014 2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before June 30, 2015 calculated 2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount August 15, 2015 Payable Service Year 2015 Item Date Preliminary estimate of 2015 Estimated September 1, 2014 Payments provided to City by Count Final Estimated 2015 Payment calculation December 15, 2014 provided to City by County First 2015 Estimated Payment due June 15, 2015 Second 2015 Estimated Payment due December 15, 2015 2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before June 30, 2016 calculated 2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount August 15, 2016 Payable Document Dated 5-29-12 56 If the Agreement is extended past December 31, 2015, the schedule is developed in the same manner as described above for years 2016 and 2017. Additional timelines are in place to commence and complete negotiations for an extension of the Agreement: County convenes interested Contracting September 2014 Cities to discuss (1) a possible extension on the same terms and (2) a possible extension on different terms. Notice of Intent by either Party not to renew March 1, 2015 agreement on the same terms (Cities also indicate whether they wish to negotiate for an extension on different terms or to let Agreement expire at end of 2015) Deadline for signing an extension (whether July 1, 2015 on the same or amended terms) See Section 4 of Agreement for additional details on Extension of the Agreement Term for an additional two years. Dates for remittal to County of pet license Quarterly, each March 31, June 30, sales revenues processed by Contracting September 30, December 31 Cities (per section 3.0 Except as otherwise provided for Licensing Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target greater than $20,000/year, requests for Licensing Revenue Support in Service Years 2014 or 2015 may be made at any time between June 30 and October 31 of the prior Service Year. (See Exhibit C-5 for additional detail). Document Dated 5-29-12 57 Exhibit D Reconciliation The purpose of the reconciliation calculation is to adjust payments made each Service Year by Contracting Parties to reflect actual licensing and non-licensing revenue, various credits, and New Regional Revenue, as compared to the estimates of such revenues and credits incorporated in the Estimated Payment calculations, and to adjust for population changes resulting from annexations of areas with a population of over 2,500 (if any) and the addition of Latecomer Cities. To accomplish this, an "Adjusted Net Final Cost" ("ANFC") calculation is made each June for each Contracting Party as described below, and then adjusted for various factors as described in this Exhibit D. As noted in Section 7 of the Agreement, the Parties intend that receipt of Animal Services should not be a profit-making enterprise. When a City receives revenues in excess of its costs under this Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service, if applicable), such excess will be reinvested to reduce costs incurred by other Contracting Parties. The cost allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome. Terms not otherwise defined here have the meanings set forth in Exhibit C or the body of the Agreement. Calculation of ANFC and Reconciliation Adjustment Amount The following formula will be used to calculate the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount, which shall be payable by August 15. The factors in the formula are defined below. As described in paragraphs A and B, the subscript "0" denotes the initial calculation; subscript "1" denotes the final calculation. ANFCo = (AR + T + V + X + LRC) - (B x LF) A. If ANFCo>- 0, i.e., revenues and credits are greater than costs (adding the cost factor "W" in the formula for Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from PAWS or purchasing Enhanced Control Services), then: ANFCi = 0, i.e., it is reset to zero and the difference between ANFCo and ANFC1 is set aside by the County (or, if the revenues are not in the possession of the County, then the gap amount is payable by the City to the County by August 15) and all such excess amounts from all Contracting Parties where ANCFo>- 0 are allocated pro-rata to parties for which ANFCi < 0, per paragraph B below. Contracting Parties for which ANFCo>- 0 do not receive a reconciliation payment. Document Dated 5-29-12 58 B. If ANFCo< 0, i.e., costs are greater than revenues (zoithout considering "W" for those Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from PAWS or purchasing Enhanced Control Services), then the negative dollar amount is not "reset" and ANFC1 is the same as ANFCo. Contracting Parties in this situation will receive a pro-rata allocation from the sum of excess revenues from those Parties for which ANFCo>_ 0 per paragraph A. In this way, excess revenues are reallocated across Contracting Parties with net final costs. C. If, after crediting the City with its pro rata share of any excess revenues per paragraph B, ANFCi < Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then the difference shall be paid by the County to the City no later than August 15; if ANFCi > Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then the difference shall be paid by the City to the County no later than August 15. Where: "AR" is Actual Licensing Revenue attributable to the City, based on actual Licensing Revenues received from residents of the City in the Service Year, adjusted for Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target> $20,000 as described in Exhibit C-5. (License Revenue that cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g., License Revenue associated with incomplete address information), will be allocated amongst the Parties based on their respective percentages of total AR). "T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, for the Service Year. "V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, for the Service Year. "W" is the actual amount paid by a City receiving shelter services to PAWS for such services during the Service Year, if any, plus the actual amount paid by a City to the County for the purchase of Enhanced Control Services during the Service Year, if any. "V is the amount of Residual New Regional Revenue, if any, allocable to the City from the 50%, of New Regional Revenues which is first applied to offset County costs for funding Shelter Credits, Transition Funding Credits and any Program costs not allocated in the cost model. The residual is shared amongst the Contracting Parties to reduce pro- rata up to 20%, of each Contracting Party's Estimated Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (See column titled "Estimated Total Animal Services Cost Allocation" in the spreadsheet at Exhibit C-1). "LRC" is the amount of any Licensing Revenue Credit or Charge to be applied based on receipt of licensing support services. For a Licensing Revenue Support City designated in Exhibit C-5, the amount shall be determined per Table 2 of Exhibit C-5 and the associated Document Dated 5-29-12 59 Licensing Support Contract, if any. Where a Licensing Revenue Support City is due a Licensing Revenue Credit, the amount applied for this factor is a positive dollar amount (e.g., increases City's revenues in the amount of the credit); if a Licensing Revenue Support City is assessed a Licensing Revenue Charge, the amount applied for this factor is a negative amount (e.g., increases City's costs). For any Contracting City receiving licensing support services per a Licensing Support Contract/ Exhibit F other than a Licensing Revenue Support City, LRC will be a negative amount (increasing the City's costs) equal to the County's cost of the licensing support set forth in the Attachment A to the Licensing Support Contract. "B" is the "Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs' as estimated for the Service Year for the provision of Animal Services to be allocated between all the Contracting Parties for the purposes of determining the Estimated Payment, calculated as described in Exhibit C. "LF" is the "Program Load Factor' attributable to City for the Service Year, calculated as described in Exhibit C. LF will be recalculated if necessary to account for annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more people, or for Latecomer Cities if such events were not accounted for in the Final Estimated Payment Calculation for the Service Year being reconciled. Additional Allocation of New Regional Revenues after calculation of all amounts above: If there is any residual New Regional Revenue remaining after allocating the full possible "V amount to each Party (to fully eliminate the population based portion of costs), the remainder shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to all Contracting Parties for which ANFCi < 0. If there is any residual thereafter, it will be applied to improve Animal Services. Document Dated 5-29-12 60 Exhibit E Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional) Between City of ("City") and King County ("County") The County will to offer Enhanced Control Services to the City during Service Years 2013, 2014 and 2105 of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 between the City and the County dated and effective as of July 1, 2012 (the "Agreement") subject to the terms and conditions as described herein. The provisions of this Contract are optional to both Parties and shall not be effective unless executed by both Parties. A. The City may request services under two different options, summarized here and described in further detail below: Option 1: for a period of not less than one year, the City may request service from an Animal Control Officer dedicated to the City ("Dedicated Officer"). Such service must be confirmed in writing through both Parties entering into this Enhanced Control Services Contract no later than August 15 of the year prior to the Service Year in which the service is requested. Option 2: for a period of less than one year, the City may request a specified number of over-time service hours on specified days and time from the 6 Animal Control Officers staffing the three Control Districts. Unlike Option 1, the individual officers providing the service will be determined by the County and may vary from time to time; the term "Dedicated Officer" used in context of Option 2 is thus different than its meaning with respect to Option 1. Option 2 service must be requested no later than 60 days prior to the commencement of the period in which the service is requested, unless waived by the County. The City shall initiate a request for enhanced service by completing and submitting Attachment A to the County. If the County determines it is able to provide the requested service, it will so confirm by completing and countersigning Attachment A and signing this Contract and returning both to the City for final execution. B. The County will provide enhanced Control Services to the City in the form of an Animal Control Officer dedicated to the City ("Dedicated Officer") as described in Attachment A and this Contract. 1. Costs identified in Attachment A for Option 1 are for one (1) year of service in 2010, in 2010 dollars, and include the cost of the employee (salary, benefits), equipment and animal control vehicle for the employee's use). Costs are subject Document Dated 5-29-12 61 to adjustment each year, limited by the Annual Budget Inflator Cap (as defined in the Agreement). 2. Costs for Option 2 will be determined by the County each year based on its actual hourly overtime pay for the individual Animal Control Officers providing the service, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate. The number of miles for which mileage is charged shall be miles which would not have been traveled but for the provision of the enhanced service. 3. Costs paid for enhanced services will be included in the Reconciliation calculation for each Service Year, as described in Exhibit D of the Agreement. C. Services of the Dedicated Officer shall be in addition to the Animal Services otherwise provided to the City by the County through the Agreement. Accordingly, the calls responded to by the Dedicated Officer shall not be incorporated in the calculation of the City's Calls for Service (as further described in Exhibit C and D to the Agreement). D. The scheduling of work by the Dedicated Officer will be determined by mutual agreement of the contract administrators identified in the Agreement, and (in the case of a purchase of service under Option 1) the mutual agreement of officials of other Contracting Cities named as contract administrators that have committed to sharing in the expense of the Dedicated Officer. In the event the parties are unable to agree on scheduling, the County shall have the right to finally determine the schedule of the Dedicated Officer(s). E. Control Services to be provided to the City pursuant to this Enhanced Services Contract include Control Services of the type and nature as described under the Agreement with respect to Animal Control Officers serving in Control Districts, and include but are not limited to, issuing written warnings, citations and other enforcement notices and orders on behalf of the City, or such other services as the Parties may reasonably agree. F. The County will provide the City with a general quarterly calendar of scheduled service in the City, and a monthly report of the types of services offered and performed. G. For Services purchased under Option 1: An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour weeks, however, with loss of service hours potentially attributable to vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days, not less than 1600 hours per year will be provided. Similarly, a half-time FTE will provide not less than 800 hours per year. The County shall submit to the City an invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar Document Dated 5-29-12 62 quarter, excepting that during the 411' quarter of each year during the term of this Contract, an invoice shall be submitted to the City no later than December 15t''. All invoiced amounts shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date. H. For Services purchased under Option 2: The County shall submit to the City an invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar quarter. All invoiced amounts shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date. I. The City or County may terminate this Enhanced Services Contract with or without cause upon providing not less than 3 months written notice to the other Party; provided that, if the City has purchased services under Option 1 and is sharing the Enhanced Control Services with other Contracting Cities, this Contract may only be terminated by the City if: (1) all such other Contracting Cities similarly agree to terminate service on such date, or (2) if prior to such termination date another Contracting City or Cities enters into a contract with the County to purchase the Enhanced Control Service that the City wishes to terminate;provided further: except as provided in Paragraph A.1, a Contract may not be terminated if the term of service resulting is less than one year. J. All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise in this Exhibit, shall apply to this Enhanced Control Services Contract. Capitalized Terms not defined herein have those meanings as set forth in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Enhanced Services Contract to be executed effective as of this day of , 201. King County City of Dow Constantine By: King County Executive Mayor/City Manager Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney Document Dated 5-29-12 63 Exhibit E: Attachment A ENHANCED CONTROL SERVICES OPTION REQUEST (to be completed by City requesting Enhanced Control Services; final service terms subject to adjustment by County and agreement by City and will be confirmed in writing executed and appended to Enhanced Control Service Contract/Exhibit E) City Requested Enhanced Control Services Start Date: Requested Enhanced Control Services End Date: *term of service must be at least one year, except if purchasing services under Option 2. Please indicate whether City is requesting services under Option 1 or Option 2: Option 1: % of Full Time Equivalent Officer (FTE) requested: (minimum request: 20%; requests must be in multiples of either 20% or 25%) Option 2: Overtime Hours purchase from existing ACO staff: hours per (week/month) General Description of desired services (days, hours, nature of service): For Option 1: Contracting Cities with whom the City proposes to share the Enhanced Control Services, and proposed percentages of an FTE those Cities are expected to request: On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will attempt to honor requests but reserves the right to propose aggregated, adjusted and variously scheduled service, including but not limited to adjusting allocations of service from Document Dated 5-29-12 64 increments of 20% to 25%, in order to develop workable employment and scheduling for the officers within then-existing workrules, and that the City will be allowed to rescind or amend its request for Enhanced Control Services as a result of such proposed changes. Requests that cannot be combined to equal 50% of an FTE, 100% of an FTE, or some multiple thereof may not be honored. Service must be requested for a minimum term of one-year, except as permitted by Paragraph A.1. .Service may not extend beyond the term of the Agreement. City requests that alone or in combination with requests of other Contracting Cities equal at least 50% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 1 below. City requests that alone or in combination with other requests for Enhanced Control Services equal 100% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 2 below. Cities may propose a different allocation approach for County consideration. An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour weeks, however, with loss of hours potentially attributable to vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days, a minimum of 1600 hours per year will be provided. A half-time FTE will provide a minimum of 800 hours per year. For example, a commitment to purchase 20%, of an FTE for enhanced service will result in provision of not less than 320 hours per year. Hours of service lost for vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days will be allocated on pro rata basis between all Contracting Cities sharing the services of that FTE. Column 1: Column 2: Aggregate of 50%of an FTE Requested by Aggregate of 1 FTE Requested by all all Participating Cities Participating Cities Cost to City: (% of Half-Time FTE Cost to City: (%of FTE requested)x requested) x $75,000/year in 2010' $115,000/year in 2010 ' Example: if City A requests 25%of an Example: If City A requests 25% of an FTE FTE**and City B requests 25%of an and City B requests 25%of an FTE and FTE**, then each city would pay$18,750 City C requests 50% of an FTE, Cities A for Enhanced Control Services from July 1, and B would pay$14,375 and City C 2010 through December 31, 2011 (6 would pay$28,750 for Enhanced Control months). Services from July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 (6 months) **(50%of a Half-Time FTE) * This example is based on 2010 costs. Actual costs will be based on actual Service Year FTE costs. Document Dated 5-29-12 65 For Option 2: On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will confirm what services, if any, it can provide, and at what costs, by completing this Attachment A, and the City must signify whether it accepts the County's offer by signing the Enhanced Services Contract. Request Signed as of this day of , 201. City of By: Its To be completed by King County: Option 1: The County hereby confirms its ability and willingness to provide Enhanced Control services as requested by the City in this Attachment A, with adjustments as noted below (if any): The FTE Cost for the Service Year in which the City has requested service is: Option 2: the County confirms its ability to provide control service overtime hours as follows (insert description—days/hours): Such overtime hours shall be provided at a cost of $ (may be a range) per service hour, with the actual cost depending on the individual(s) assigned to work the hours, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate. King County By: Its Date: Document Dated 5-29-12 66 Exhibit F Licensing Support Contract (Optional) Between City of ("City") and King County ("County") The County is prepared to offer licensing revenue support to the City subject to the terms and conditions described in this Licensing Support Contract ("Contract"). The provisions of this Exhibit are optional and shall not be effective unless this Exhibit is executed by both the City and the County and both parties have entered into the underlying Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 (the "Agreement"). A. Service Requests, Submittal: Requests to enter into a licensing support contract should be made by submitting the Licensing Revenue Support Services Request (Attachment A to this Exhibit F) to the County between June 30 and October 31 of the calendar year prior to year in which such services are requested ("Service Year"). A separate Request shall be submitted for each Service Year, excepting that a Licensing Support City with a revenue target in excess of$20,000/year may submit a request by September 1, 2012 in order to receive service in all three Service Years (2013, 2014 and 2015). B. County to Determine Service Availability: The County will determine whether it has capacity to provide the requested service based on whether it has staff available, and consistent with the priorities stated in Section 7.c and Exhibit C-5 of the Agreement. C. Services Provided by County, Cost: The County will determine the licensing revenue support activities it will undertake to achieve the Licensing Revenue Target. Activities may include, but are not limited to canvassing, mailings, calls to non-renewals. In completing Attachment A to confirm its ability to provide licensing support services to the City, the County shall identify the cost for such service for each applicable Service Year. If the City accepts the County's proposed costs, it shall so signify by countersigning Attachment A. D. Services Provided by City: In exchange for receiving licensing revenue support from the County, the City will provide the following services: 1. Include inserts regarding animal licensing in bills or other mailings as may be allowed by law, at the City's cost. The County will provide the design for the insert and coordinate with the City to deliver the design on an agreed upon schedule. 2. Dedicate a minimum level of volunteer/staff hours per month (averaged over the year), based on the City's Licensing Revenue Target for the Year (as Document Dated 5-29-12 67 specified/selected in Attachment A) to canvassing and/or mailings and outbound calls to non-renewals. City volunteer/staff hour requirements are scaled based on the size of the Licensing Revenue Target per Table A below: Table A: Volunteer/Staff Hours to be Provided by City If the Licensing Revenue Target The City shall provide volunteer/staff hours for the Service Year is between: support (averaged over the ear) $0 and $5,000 9 hours per month $5,001410,000 18 hours per month $10,000-$20,000 27 hours per month $20,001 and $40,000 36 hours per month >$40,000 45 hours per month 3. Provide representation at a minimum of two public events annually to inform City residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet licensing. 4. Inform City residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet licensing utilizing print and electronic media including the city's website, social media, community brochures and newsletter ads/articles, signage/posters and pet licensing applications in public areas of city buildings and parks. 5. Appoint a representative to serve on the joint City-County marketing subcommittee; this representative shall attend the quarterly meetings of the subcommittee and help shape and apply within the City the joint advertising strategies developed by consensus of the subcommittee. E. Selection of Licensing Revenue Target and Payment for Licensing Revenue Support: 1. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities (those identified in Exhibit C-5 of the Agreement): In 2014 and 2015, Licensing Revenue Support Cities may receive licensing revenue support intended to generate total annual Licensing Revenue at or above the Revenue Goal in Table 1 of Exhibit C-5. The City will receive a Licensing Revenue Credit or Charge at Reconciliation in accordance with the calculations in Table 2 of Exhibit C-5. A Licensing Revenue Support City may request service under subparagraph 2 below. 2. For all other Contacting Cities: The City will identify a proposed Licensing Revenue Target in Attachment A. The County may propose an alternate Revenue Target. If the Parties agree upon a Licensing Revenue Target, the County shall indentify its annual cost to provide service designed to achieve the target. At Reconciliation, the City shall be charged for licensing support service at the cost specified and agreed in Attachment A (the "Licensing Revenue Charge"), Document Dated 5-29-12 68 regardless of the amount of Licensing Revenue received by the City during the Service Year (see Exhibit D of the Agreement for additional detail). F. Other Terms and Conditions: 1. Before January 31 of the Service Year, each Party will provide the other with a general calendar of in-kind services to be provided over the course of the Service Year. 2. Each Party will provide the other with a monthly written report of the services performed during the Service Year. 3. Either Party may terminate this Contract with or without cause by providing not less than 2 months' advance written notice to the other Party; provided that all County costs incurred to the point of termination remain chargeable to the City as otherwise provided. 4. All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise herein, shall apply to this Contract, and Capitalized Terms not defined herein have the meanings as set forth in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Contract for Licensing Support Services to be executed effective as of this day of. 201. King County City of Dow Constantine By: King County Executive Mayor/City Manager Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney Document Dated 5-29-12 69 Exhibit F: Attachment A LICENSING REVENUE SUPPORT SERVICES REQUEST (to be completed by City requesting licensing support services;one request per Service Year except for a Licensing Support City with a Licensing Revenue Target over$20,000/year;final terms subject to adjustment by County and agreement by City confirmed in writing, executed and appended to the Contract for Licensing Support Services—Exhibit F of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement far 2013 Through 2015 ("the Agreement")dated effective as of July 1,2012.) 1. City Date of Request: 2. Licensing Revenue Target (the amount by which the City seeks to increase its revenues in the Service Year): $ Note: • For Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the Licensing Revenue Support Target is defined in Table 1 of Exhibit C-5 of the Agreement, unless the Parties otherwise agree. • The amount of volunteer/staff hours and other in-kind services required of the City in exchange for receipt of licensing support services is based on the size of the Licensing Revenue Target (see Licensing Support Contract/ Exhibit F of Agreement). 3. Contact person who will coordinate City responsibilities associated with delivery of licensing support services: Name: Title: Phone: Fax: I understand that: A. provision of licensing revenue support services is subject to the County determining it has staff available to provide the services; B. For Contracting Cities other than Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the County may propose an adjustment in the requested Licensing Revenue Target; C. the County will, by September 1 of the current calendar year, provide the City with a firm cost to provide the amount of licensing support services the County proposes to provide by completing this Attachment A; D. the County cannot verify and does not guarantee a precise level of Licensing Revenues to be received by the City as a result of these services; E. Receipt of service is subject to County and City agreeing on the Licensing Revenue Target and County charge for these services (incorporated in Document Dated 5-29-12 70 calculation of the Licensing Revenue Credit/Charge per the Agreement), and executing the Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F of the Agreement). Request signed as of this day of , 201. City of By: Its: To be completed by King County: The County offers to provide the City licensing revenue support services in Service Year 201 intended to generate $ (the "Licensing Revenue Target") in additional Licensing Revenue for a total Service Year cost of $ , some or all of which cost may be charged to the City in calculating the Licensing Revenue Charge, as further described in the Licensing Support Contract and Exhibits C-5 (for Licensing Support Cities) and D of the Agreement. King County By: Its: Date: To be completed by the City: The County offer is accepted as of this day of 201. City of By: Its: Document Dated 5-29-12 71 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7G TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant Amendment - Accept MOTION: Authorize the Kent Police Department to accept grant funds from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission in the amount of $6,150, amend the budget and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms and conditions, subject to approval of final terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The additional grant funds will provide increased officer overtime funding to conduct traffic safety emphasis patrols in support of Target Zero Teams, and the North and South King County Target Zero Task Forces. This amendment also extends the term of the grant from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The original term of the grant was from October 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, and was approved by City Council on September 20, 2011. EXHIBITS: Amendment No. 1 to WTSC and WTSC Memorandum of Understanding RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/12/12 BUDGET IMPACTS: None 4 BTAPg 43 A o ai J , Oyp add 1869 AMENDMENT #1 TO Memorandum of Understanding BETWEEN Kent Police Department and WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION THIS AMENDMENT #1 is made and entered into by and between the Kent Police Department and the WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION (WTSC). Original Term : October 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT #1 to increase the amount of funding available and extend the term for enforcement for the project titled: Target Zero Teams, North and South King County Target Zero Task Forces, IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: Term: This Amendment extends the enforcement term by 3 months and is valid from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. CFDA #: The CFDA number for additional funds included in this Amendment is 20.600 — DTNH-22-09-R-00117. S.Grant Amount: This Amendment increases by $6150 the amount available to the Kent Police Department for Target Zero Teams enforcement. Thus the total amount of funding available to Kent Police Department will be $22,387.50. 10. Deadline for Claims: This Amendment adds a second deadline that all claims for reimbursement for emphases conducted between July 1 and September 30 must be received by WTSC no later than November 15, 2012, Page 1 of 2 This Amendment #1 will not be binding unless and until it is signed by persons authorized to bind each of the parties. i IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGR ME (Kent Police Department) (Washington Traffic Safety Commission) (Date) (Date) i II Page 2 of 2 i c p 4 S � ! n o$ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Target Zero Teams North and South King County Target Zero Task Forces Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement Liaison, & Target Zero Manager THIS AGREEMENT, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, is made and entered into by and between the Kent Police Department and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC). TERM: October 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 AMOONT: NOT TO EXCEED $16,237.50 CFDA # 20.600 IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide funding for King County Law Enforcement Agencies to participate in the Target Zero Teams project. GOAL: to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by impaired drivers in King County through aggressive, multi-jurisdictional, high-visibility patrols using an integrated systems approach to traffic safety which is evidenced-based and targets the locations where the most safety benefit can be realized. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: The Target Zero Team DUI patrols will be deployed at times and locations where data indicates that the most safety benefit can be realized as determined by the King County Target Zero Task Forces. 2. CONDITIONS: The Kent Police Department will deploy highly skilled officers in coordination with other King County Law Enforcement agencies, the King County Target Zero Task Forces, and the WSP District 2 Target Zero Team to generate the highest amount of deterrence possible. The Kent Police Department certifies that all of the officers that participate in DUI emphasis patrols under the terms of this agreement are SFST trained. Officers participating on the Target Zero Teams project Created: August 2011 TZT KING LEILEL/TZM MOU FFY 2012 Page 1 of 4 must be proficient in conducting standard field sobriety tests. SFST training is required as follows: • Officers who received SFST training prior to 2008 will need to pass SFST refresher training before participating on these patrols. • Officer who received SFST training in 2008 or later will need to take the SFST refresher training when their BAC re-certification is due to stay current and be qualified to work these patrols. (BAC re-certification and SFST refresher training are required every three years.) j The 16-hour Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) course is recommended for officers participating in Target Zero Team patrols. 3. PAYMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: The Kent Police Department will provide commissioned law enforcement with appropriate equipment (vehicle, radar, etc.) and on an overtime basis (not to exceed 1.5 times their normal salary and benefits) to participate in these emphasis patrols not to exceed officer overtime of $10,837.50 total for the fiscal year. The Kent Police Department will also provide the King County Target Zero Task Force Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) on an overtime basis (not to exceed 1.5 times their normal salary and benefits) as needed, to review data, plan operations, and coordinate emphasis patrols not to exceed LEL overtime of $3,375.00 total for the fiscal year. The Kent Police Department will also provide the South King County Target Zero Manager (TZM) on an overtime basis (not to exceed 1.5 times their normal salary and benefits) as needed for the management of the Target Zero Teams project not to exceed TZM- overtime of $2,025.00 total for the fiscal year. Overtime for court appearances that result from a law enforcement officer making a DUI arrest while on Target Zero Teams patrol will be considered for reimbursement with approval from the Target Zero Manager or her designee. 4. DISPATCH: WTSC will reimburse communications officers/dispatch personnel for work on this project providing the Kent Police Department has received prior approval from the Target Zero Manager. 5. GRANT AMOUNT: WTSC will reimburse the Kent Police Department for overtime salary and benefits. Your agency is allotted $16,237.50 for the cost of this project. This allocation may be increased by your Target Zero Manager during the above campaign(s), without amending this agreement Created:August 2011 TZT KING LEILEUTZM MOU IFFY 2012 Page 2 of 4 o PROVIDED THAT the increase in the allocation does not exceed 50 /o of the original amount. Any increase in allocation exceeding 50% will require an amendment to this document. 6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: a. All participating law enforcement officers are required to have 3 self-initiated contacts per hour of enforcement, or show DUI arrests. b. Some violator contacts may result in related, time-consuming activity. This activity is reimbursable. c. Other activities, such as collision investigation or emergency response that are not initiated through emphasis patrol contact WILL NOT be reimbursed. 9. REIMBURSEMENT OF CLAIMS: Claims for reimbursement must include: a. Invoice Voucher (A19-1A Form). • The Kent Police Department identified as the "Claimant"; • A Federal Tax ID #; and, • Original signature of the agency head, command officer or contracting officer. b. Payroll support documents (signed overtime slips, payroll documents). c. Officer TZT Emphasis Patrol Activity Logs (attached) showing 3 or more self-initiated contacts per hour and/or DUI arrests for reimbursement for any patrol overtime reimbursement. 10. DEADLINE FOR CLAIMS: All claims for reimbursement for emphases conducted prior to June 30 must be received by WTSC no later than August 15, 2012. Monthly billing is preferred. 11. DISPUTES: Disputes arising under this Memorandum shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative of the WTSC, one representative from the Kent Police Department, and a mutually agreed upon third party. The dispute panel shall decide the dispute by majority vote. 12. TERMINATION: Either party may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to the other party. In the event of termination of this Agreement, the terminating party shall be liable for the performance rendered prior to the effective date of termination. 13. SUPPLANTING DISCLAIMER: I certify that none of the funds for this project supplant the normally budgeted funds of this agency nor do these funds pay for routine traffic enforcement normally provided by this agency. Created: August 2011 TZT KING LE/LEUTZM MOU FFY 2012 Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT. Kent Police Department Agency Washington Traffic Safety Commission Contracting Agent (Print) Date Signature Date Agency address (for mailing fully executed MOU): 220 41h Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Agency PIO contact: Lt. Pat Lowery W: 253-856-5833 Please return two signed MOUs to your Target Zero Manager. Cesi Velez Target Zero Manager 220 41h Ave. S. Address Kent WA 98032 City/State/Zip 253-856-5884 cvelez(abkentWA.gov Phone/E-mail Target Zero Manager will return to: Shelly Baldwin, WTSC Impaired Driving Program Manager 621 — 8th Avenue SW, Suite 409, PO Box 40944 Olympia, WA 98504-0944 360.725.9889 sbaldwin@wtsc.wa.gov Created:August 2011 TZT KING LE/LEL/TZM MOU FFY 2012 Page 4 of 4 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7H TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Washington State Patrol SECTOR Service Level Agreement — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Police Chief to sign the SECTOR Service Level Agreement with Washington State Patrol, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The Agreement clarifies roles and responsibilities for the Kent Police Department and Washington State Patrol (WSP) regarding citation and collision report processing. SECTOR has three primary parts: • SECTOR Client software will be used to create and transmit electronic collision reports, notice of infractions and notice of criminal citations. • SECTOR BackOffice is the application and database at WSP that accepts the above reports, infractions and citations. • SECTOR Governance Committee controls all the applications and is made up of representatives from the WTSC, WSP, WSDOT, DOL, and Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). This agreement replaces the previous agreement for the following purposes: • Expands capability to include use on Pano boxes; • Extends termination date by one year to June 30, 2016; • Current contacts listed for Kent Police and IT personnel; and • Current Chief of Police signature EXHIBITS: Washington State Patrol Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/12/12 BUDGET IMPACTS: None WSP No. C120791GSC SECTOR Service Level Agreement Between Kent Police Department And Washington State Patrol 1. Purpose. This Service Level Agreement (Agreement) is between the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and the Kent Police Department (a General authority Washington law enforcement agency as defined in Section 10.93.020 of the Revised Code of Washington), referred to hereafter as the Agency. This Agreement defines roles and expectations in regard to the Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records (SECTOR) processes including a method for resolving technical issues. 2. Description of SECTOR.`SECTOR has three primary parts: • SECTOR Client is the application that operates on a vehicle computer or device, or`a collision reviewer's workstation. SECTOR Client software will be used to create and transmit electronic collision reports, notice of infractions (NO[), and notice of criminal citations (NOCC). • SECTOR BackOffice is the application and database at WSP that accepts collision reports, NOls and NOCCs. The SECTOR BackOffice application coordinates updates to the SECTOR Client software • The third part is all applications that receive and process collision, NOI and NOCC data as collected either through SECTOR or on paper forms. These applications are under the control of a governing organization with representatives from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), WSP, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Department of Licensing (DOL). This group is known as the SECTOR Governance Committee. 3. Agency Responsibilities. The Agency certifies that it operates computers to create or review vehicle collision reports and/or NOls and/or NOCCs pursuant to federal, state, and local requirements using SECTOR Client. Under this Agreement the responsibilities of the Agency are: a. The Agency shall designate a Local SECTOR Administrator as the primary contact for SECTOR and who will receive SECTOR Administrator training. The Local SECTOR administrator shall: • Administer user accounts for Agency personnel; • Accept modifications to the SECTOR Client; • Document and submit recommendations for modification of SECTOR via the change request process; • Manage the connection(s) needed to move data between SECTOR Client to SECTOR BackOffice applications; • Provide support for Agency users and reviewers; • Update required Agency processes with the parameters of SECTOR. SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 1 • Contact WSP Information Technology Division Customer Services to initiate a work order for problem resolution and tracking. b. Agency support staff will install SECTOR Client software on Agency-owned equipment. The Agency will not share the SECTOR Client with others. c. The Agency acknowledges Appendix A, Statement on Collision Records Data. The Agency certifies that if it operates electronic equipment to create vehicle collision reports pursuant to federal, state and local requirements it will not disclose collision data except in compliance with federal and state law. d. The Agency will adhere to the SECTOR application standards for the computing environment as published by WSP. The Agency will make its electronic collision, NOI and NOCC reporting equipment and system secure and prevent unauthorized use. The Agency will ensure Agency SECTOR equipment maintains current virus checking software. if the Agency SECTOR equipment becomes infected, the Agency will take all necessary steps to remove the virus and assure the virus is not transmitted to the SECTOR server located at and maintained by WSP. e. Agency users and reviewers will transfer collisions, NOIs,and NOCCs regularly and promptly. All Agency users and reviewers will adhere to training program detailed in Appendix B,`SECTOR Governance Committee Training Policies. f. The Agency will be responsible for all required.hardware and software purchases for the Agency use of the SECTOR Client application and the transmittal of collision reports, NOls, and NOCCs to WSP, including Agency personnel, operating, maintenance, and data transmission costs. Any costs associated with the Agency interfacing with SECTOR BackOffice will be the responsibility of the Agency. g. If the Agency is an Office of a Prosecuting Attorney, Agency users will not utilize the SECTOR client to create collision reports; 4. WSP Responsibilities. WSP provides support for SECTOR Client and SECTOR, BackOffice computing environment. Under this Agreement the responsibilities of . WSP are: a. WSP will provide SECTOR Client software to the Agency at no charge. Maintenance of the SECTOR Client application is provided by WSP, including maintaining compliance with the business rules, data formats, and standardized collision report forms. WSP will provide the Web uniform resource locator (URL) address for connection to the SECTOR BackOffice application and security information to the Local SECTOR Administrator to assure client connectivity. WSP will provide a secure environment for collision, NOI, and NOCC data; and retain this data according to federal and state laws and regulations. WSP will also provide to the Agency any evasive action required to protect the SECTOR computing environment from significant risk. b. WSP will create Local SECTOR Administrator Account; train the Local SECTOR Administrator; and assist the Local SECTOR Administrator in administration of agency accounts. SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 2 c. WSP will provide a change request/control process; coordinate change requests describing issues or enhancements through the SECTOR Governance Committee; provide notification of application modifications; transmit NOls and NOCCs to AOC; and transmit collision reports to DOT and DOL. d. WSP reserves the right to review and approve Agency equipment security measures; and to suspend or withhold service until such matters are corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of WSP. This includes validation of current virus checking software packages. e. WSP will support SECTOR Governance Committee sanctioned training. f. WSP Information Technology Division Customer Services will provide first level telephone support twenty-four(24) hours-a-day, seven (7) days-a-week to assist the Agency in resolving problems with the SECTOR application. This support is limited to resolutions for routine questions on the SECTOR Client application and processes, including troubleshooting and password resets, and using pre-defined policies and procedures. Items not immediately resolved by WSP will be moved to a higher level of support within WSP; this higher level of support is provided during regular business hours, Monday through Friday. 5. Project Contacts. WSP and Agency points of contact for this Agreement are identified in Appendix C, Project Contacts. 6. Changes and Modifications. Except for changes to the points of contact information contained in Appendix C, changes in this Agreement are not in effect unless agreed upon by both WSP and the Agency. However, the Agency agrees to comply with changes in data formats, report forms and other business rules as required by WSP. The Agency will be notified when any changes or updates to these requirements occur. The revising party shall notify the other party of any changes to Appendix C within five (5) business days of the change taking affect. 7. Compliance with Civil Rights Laws. During the period of performance for this Agreement, both parties shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws. 8. WSP Staffing. WSP staff providing services under the terms of this Agreement shall be under the direct command and control of the Chief of WSP or designee and shall perform the duties required by this Agreement in a manner consistent with WSP policy and regulations, applicable state and local laws, and the Constitutions of the State of Washington and the United States. The assignment of personnel to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement shall be at the discretion of the Chief of WSP or designee. I 9. Hold Harmless. Each party shall defend, protect and hold harmless the other party from and against all claims suits and/or actions arising from any negligent or intentional act or omission of that party's employees, agents, and/or authorized subcontractor(s) while performing under this Agreement. 10. Period of Performance. This Agreement becomes effective on the date of the last signature and continues until June 30, 2016, or until termination as provided herein. SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 3 11. Termination. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, either art may P P 9 party Y terminate this Agreement by giving ninety (90) calendar days written notification of termination to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the terminating party shall be liable only for performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for performance prior to the effective date of termination. 12. Disputes. In the event that a dispute arises under this agreement, it shall be determined in the following manner. The Chief of the WSP shall appoint one j member to the Dispute Board. The Agency shall appoint one member to the Dispute Board. The Chief of the WSP and the Agency shall jointly appoint an additional member to the Dispute Board, The Dispute Board shall evaluate the dispute and make a determination of the dispute. The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. 13. Order of Precedence. In the event of any inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:,applicable federal and state statutes and regulations; the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; any other provisions of the Agreement, whether incorporated by reference or otherwise. 14. Complete Agreement. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding, the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or bind any of the parties hereto. The parties signing below warrant that they have read and understand this Agreement; and have the authority to enter into this Agreement. STATE OF WASHINGTON KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON STATE PATROL Signature Date Signature Date Printed Name and Title Printed Name and Title APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 4/27/2010 Appendices: Appendix A - Statement on Collision Records Data Appendix B - SECTOR Governance Committee Training Policies Appendix B - Project Contacts SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 4 APPENDIX A Statement on Collision Records Data In 1938 Washington State law (currently RCW 46.52.060) authorized the Washington State Patrol (WSP)to file, tabulate and analyze,collision reports; and to produce certain statistical information about collisions. For the next thirty years WSP maintained a largely manual system for filing collision reports generated over approximately five-year periods. WSP also produced some limited statistical collision data, primarily fatality and accident rate summaries, using paper punch card technology. Analysis of collision data for highway safety purposes was not possible because Washington State did not have a uniform collision report; data on collision reports was primitive and inconsistent; collision reports were not coded by precise roadway location, and no computerized database system existed. In 1966 and 1973 the federal government enacted laws requiring states to create computerized collision databases in order to analyze the need for highway safety improvements; and to participate in federal programs to fund those improvements. These federal laws and their associated funding provided for states to adopt uniform collision reports containing detailed highway safety coding; and provided that information from these reports would be maintained in a computerized collision database with precise location coding of all collisions. These laws were implemented jointly by WSP and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Beginning in approximately 1970 WSP collected collision reports and entered the raw data into a computer. The data was then transferred to WSDOT for the creation of the collision database required under federal law. WSP maintained copies of individual collision records as well as its database, while WSDOT maintained their own collision database. The WSP and WSDOT systems for filing individual collision reports, the entry of raw data into a computer, and the creation of the collision database remained unchanged until 1996. By this time the original WSP computer system used for data entry and storage and retrieval of collision records had become obsolete. An attempt to convert to an optical character recognition system was not successful. After an extensive discussion between WSP, WSDOT and the Washington State Office of Financial Management, the agencies concluded that functions related to the maintenance of copies of collision reports and computer input of raw collision report data could be most efficiently performed by WSDOT in conjunction with its already existing collision database function. Beginning in 2002, WSDOT not only created the collision database required by federal law but also, pursuant to an interagency agreement with WSP, began entering all raw collision data into WSDOT's computer. Pursuant to this interagency agreement, WSDOT also began work to develop an electronic imaging system to store and retrieve copies of individual collision reports. This imaging system was implemented in May 2003. The current system for filing paper collision reports and creating the collision database will remain in effect until WSP, WSDOT and separate law enforcement agencies enter into a SECTOR Service Level Agreement to allow Agencies to file collision reports and transmit collision report data electronically to WSDOT. The Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records (SECTOR) application was developed through a collaborative partnership that includes WSP, WSDOT, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Department of Licensing, and local law enforcement agencies. SECTOR enables law enforcement officers to create electronic collision reports and other forms in SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 5 the field, pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. This data is then transferred to a central database where it is available for review, analysis and reporting by law enforcement agencies, The Department of Licensing is an agency of the State of Washington authorized by law (RCW 46.52.030) to receive full access to collision reports for purposes of maintaining case records under RCW 46.52.120; for supplying abstracts of driving records under RCW 46.52.130; and to administer financial responsibility requirements when drivers are involved in traffic collisions under chapter 46.29 RCW. To perform these functions, they must review collision reports that are filed by law enforcement agencies and citizens. Federal law prohibits data compiled or collected for purposes of complying with federal highway safety laws from being used in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned in the data(Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (2003). Accordingly, collision data may not be disclosed unless a requestor acknowledges that the data will not be used in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned in the report. I SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 6 j APPENDIX B SECTOR Governance Committee Training Policies Training Requirements 1. Every Agency that elects to use SECTOR must designate one person (up to three) to attend a Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Course. This ensures that each Agency using SECTOR will have at least one individual who has received training through the Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Course. An Agency may send more than three officers/deputies to Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Course when additional seats are available. - 2. Individuals who have attended the Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Course should assume responsibility for training other users within their Agency. 3. Training courses conducted within an Agency must be coordinated with the SECTOR Training Coordinator. Training Recommendations 1. Individuals conducting training within their Agency should be proficient with the SECTOR application prior to training additional users by using SECTOR for at least 90 days prior to conducting training. Agencies can request assistance from WSP or other agencies for training. 2. Agencies must designate a SECTOR point-of-contact through whom all SECTOR support questions will come to the WSP help desk. This point-of-contact will most often be the Agency's designated Local SECTOR Administrator. For urgent SECTOR issues or questions during non-standard work hours SECTOR users may contact the WSP Information Technology Division Customer Services. 3. Each Agency SECTOR User should receive training with the current version of the course materials and according to established course standards. These include: a. Course manuals & exercises b. Training materials c. Suggested course duration (2 days) d. SECTOR Training evaluation form (optional) 4. Individuals who have attended a Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Course and are experienced in the use of SECTOR are encouraged to serve as trainers in future Governance Team sponsored SECTOR Training Courses or with other agencies. 5. Recommendations for improvements to SECTOR should be directed to the Agency's Local SECTOR Administrator. The Local SECTOR Administrator sends recommendations/feedback to WSP. SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 7 APPENDIX C Project Contacts 1. For WSP: Technical issues and change requests: Information Technology Division Customer Services Group - Telephone: (360) 705-5999 E-mail: ITDCustomerServicesGrouppwsp.wa.aov or ITDHeIp0 s_.wa.00v Service Level Agreement issues: Ms. Pat Ramsdell Information Technology Division Washington State Patrol Street Address: 403 Cleveland Avenue, Suite C, Tumwater WA 98501 Mailing Address: PO Box 42622, Olympia WA 98504 2622 Telephone: (360) 705-5170 E-mail: Pat.ramsdellpwsp.wa.gov 2. For the Agency. Technical issues and change requests: Curt Ryser (253)856-4.642 CRyser@kentwa.gov Service Level Agreement issues: Sergeant Robert Constant (253) 856-5882 rconstant@kentwa.gov SECTOR User Agreement-April 2010 Page 8 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7I TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Downey Farmstead Restoration Consultant Contract — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the consultant services agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants in an amount not to exceed $232,780, for final design of the Downey Farmstead Restoration Project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The Downey Farmstead Restoration Project involves four parcels totaling 21.81 acres located along the left bank of the Green River from River Mile 21.7 to 22.2 (across the river from the Riverbend Driving Range, near SR 516). This restoration project will include realignment and setback of Frager Road from the Green River in order to reconnect the floodplain and create off-channel rearing and refuge habitat, primarily for juvenile Chinook salmon. A secondary goal of the project is to create additional flood storage to help alleviate flood damage to nearby urban and agricultural areas. A Preliminary Design Report and 30 percent design was completed in March 2010 with grant funding from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Salmon Recovery Funding Board. This contract is to complete final project design, including permitting, bid specifications and construction cost estimates. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work, Downey Farmstead Restoration Project RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The City has received grant funding in the amount of $46,419 from the King Conservation District and $253,581 from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for a total of $300,000 to pay for final project design, permitting, specs and construction cost estimate. No city funds are required. SCOPE OF WORK DOWNEY FARMSTEAD RESTORATION PROJECT DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES On May 8, 2012, the City of Kent(City) authorized Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to prepare a scope of work and budget to address environmental permitting and complete design of the Downey Farmstead Restoration Project. The properties on which the former Downey Farmstead was located are along Frager Road S. in unincorporated King County on the south bank of the Green River from river mile (RM)21.5 to 22.3. The 21.8-acre project site is comprised of four parcels owned by the City. The Downey Farmstead Restoration Project will include creation of floodplain storage and side channels with associated wetland habitat parallel to the Green River with the intent of increasing access to key juvenile rearing habitat within the floodplain for Chinook and other salmonids, and to restore natural floodplain functions. The project must also address King County requirements related to a designated Agricultural Production District, which mandate that a restoration project in this location provide net benefits to the local agricultural community. Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) and its subconsultant URS Corporation (URS) finalized a feasibility study and preliminary design report and corresponding 30% complete design in March 2010. This scope of work and the associated budget is for final project design and permitting based on the preliminary design report and 30% design documents. This scope of work includes a discussion of the activities, assumptions, deliverables, and a schedule associated with the following tasks on this project: ■ Task 1 —Project Management/Contract Administration and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review ■ Task 2—Hydraulic Analysis ■ Task 3 —Project Meetings ■ Task 4 —75% Design Plans & Estimate ■ Task 5 —Final (100%) Design,Plans, Specifications, &Estimate ■ Task 6—Bid Documents Preparation ■ Task 7—Geotechnical Analysis and Design Recommendations ■ Task 8—Cultural Resources Analysis ■ Task 9 —Finalize Design Report ■ Task 10—Environmental Documentation and Permitting Task 1 — Project Management/Contract Administration and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review Herrera will be responsible for ongoing project management and contract administration of this project, including developing and maintaining a schedule for the project; preparing invoices and progress reports, as well as coordination of work efforts with the City project manager and subconsultant URS. Throughout the course of the project, Herrera's project manager and contract manager will have phone and e-mail contact with the City on an as-needed basis. ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 1 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Herrera will use an established system of quality assurance and quality control on all of the consultant team's deliverables described in this scope of work. Assumptions ■ The project will start on July 1, 2012 and extend through April 2013, for a total of 10 months. ■ Herrera will submit a detailed project schedule at the outset of project work and update the schedule on a monthly basis in consultation with the City's project manager. Deliverables ■ Project schedule in MS Project format and monthly schedule updates. ■ Monthly progress reports and invoices. Task 2 — Hydraulic Analysis and Documentation Task 2.1 River Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic modeling will be conducted to provide a representation of the hydraulic effects of the design to support fish access to the proposed side channel, to demonstrate flood storage benefits, and to support permit applications. The focus of the hydraulic modeling will be to evaluate the performance of habitat-sustaining characteristics of the design (flow velocities, water depths, and channel bed shear stresses), and evaluate the configuration of side channel connections to the existing river channel. The model results will be used to assess side channel dimensions needed to sustain fish habitat, calculate hydraulic forces on the proposed log structures for scour and stability analyses, and demonstrate that the proposed project will not raise flood elevations. The modeling is only intended to support design and not to establish floodplain mapping. The model input data and results will be summarized in a brief technical memorandum. An existing conditions HEC-RAS model of the Green River was developed for King County by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and updated by Herrera for the preliminary (30%) design work. The existing model was originally designed to assess flooding throughout the Green River valley, and updated with greater resolution through the project site in order to better demonstrate local hydraulic changes that would be expected with project construction at a smaller scale. The existing HEC-RAS model is well-suited to capture instream hydraulic characteristics in the proposed side channel, and can reveal the upstream extent of the flood reduction benefits that could be achieved as a result of the project. The modeling performed for the predesign effort was associated with comparison of potential alternatives and did not reflect the 30% design configuration, which is a hybrid of some of the alternatives that were considered at the time. Thus, the model needs to be modified to simulate conditions expected with the proposed design configuration. Assumptions • An existing HEC-RAS model developed by NHC, and modified by Herrera in the preliminary (30%) design work will be updated to assess existing hydraulic conditions for peals flood events at the project site. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 2 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK • Hydraulic modeling will be limited to the project reach defined as 1,000 feet upstream of the SR 516 bridge to 500 feet downstream of the mouth of Mullen Slough (approximately 4,500 lineal feet of channel and adjacent banks and floodplain). • Herrera will conduct a"zero rise" 100-year floodplain water surface analysis in support of King County permitting. • Up to 4 flow rates will be considered to assess the hydraulic characteristics in HEC- RAS and to guide design. These 4 flows include the summer low, average annual, 2- year, and 100-year clear-water flood events. The average annual and 2-year events will be modeled for the purpose of estimating side channel activation for habitat optimization. The summer low flow will help with design of the side channel to be accessible to fish at all times. • The 100-year event will represent a worst-case flood for design of the habitat structures. If the Howard Hansen Dam fails in the future and allows a greater flood flow in the lower Green River than would occur otherwise, it is assumed that this project would not be designed to completely withstand that larger flood flow. • Herrera will perform hydraulic analysis of a design water surface elevation for work area isolation measures during construction of side channel connections to the mainstem river channel. • One site visit for one Herrera modeler will take place as part of this task. • The technical memorandum prepared by Herrera in this task will be subject to one round of review by the City. The City will provide Herrera with one set of consolidated comments on the draft memorandum. Deliverables • A draft Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis technical memorandum will be prepared for City review concurrent with the 75% design submittal milestone described in Task 4 in order to support relevant permits—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat file format. • A final Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis technical memorandum will be prepared to accompany the Final 100% design plans—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)format and one hard copy. Task 2.2 Storm Drainage Relocation of Frager Road S. will trigger King County code requirements for stormwater treatment associated with the new roadway surface. Additionally, the project is subject to King County requirements for temporary erosion and sediment control during construction. Herrera will prepare a Technical Information Report(TIR) in accordance with King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements to document the applicable stormwater management and erosion control requirements, and sizing of permanent runoff treatment facilities. Assumptions • Stormwater flow control will not apply to the project. • No storm drainage conveyance features will be needed — the roadway design will promote sheet flow of pavement drainage to the road edge. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 3 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK • As documented in the preliminary design report, a vegetated filter strip will suffice for runoff treatment on the embankments of the new road corridor. • A draft TIR will be submitted for City of Kent review prior to submittal to King County for permitting review. • The revised TIR incorporating City comments will be submitted to King County for review. If minor comments on the TIR are provided by King County, the report will be revised once more to address those comments. Deliverables • A draft Technical Information Report(TIR) will be prepared for City review— submitted as electronic files in MS Word and Adobe Acrobat(pdf)formats. • A final Technical Information Report(TIR)will be prepared for submittal to King County—submitted as an electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)format and one hard copy. Task 3 — Project Meetings There will be several meetings with the City and project partners (anticipated to include King County and the Muckleshoot Tribe) during the course of design development. For purposes of budgeting for this task, it is assumed that the following meetings will occur: • Four Herrera team representatives will attend a project kick-off meeting with the City project manager and staff. • Three Herrera team representatives will attend a design meeting to resolve City comments on the 75% complete design plans in advance of permit applications. • Three Herrera team representatives will attend a design meeting to resolve City comments on the 100% complete design. • Two Herrera team representatives will attend a permitting strategy meeting with City staff. Assumptions • All meetings will be conducted at City offices or at the project site. • Each meeting will be up to 4 hours in length including travel, preparation of meeting agendas, and meeting minutes. • The City will decide which meetings to invite project partners to. • Pre-application meetings are included in Task 10.5 (Permitting Coordination). • Materials prepared in other tasks will form the basis of meeting discussions. Deliverables • Content for meeting agendas • Meeting minutes in electronic file format. Task 4 —75% Design Plans & Estimate Herrera and URS will provide engineering services necessary to prepare detailed construction plans, and a corresponding engineer's estimate of construction cost for the project in accordance ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 4 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK with City construction standards and standard plans. This task will include preparing a 75% submittal(as defined in the Deliverables section below). The budget for this task is based on preparing the drawings listed in Table 1. The 30% design submittal prepared under a previous contract will form the basis for the detailed design work conducted in this task If a greater number of drawings is ultimately needed to present the complete project design, additional budget may be needed for this task. Table 1: Anticipated Drawing List for Design Submittals Sheet No. Description Design Submittals 1 Title Sheet, Sheet Index and Vicinity Map 75%, 100%,Bid Set 2 General Notes,Legend and Construction Sequencing 75%, 100%,Bid Set 3 Existing Site Plan and Key Map 75%, 100%,Bid Set 4 Proposed Site Grading Plan-West 75%, 100%,Bid Set 5 Proposed Site Grading Plan-East 75%, 100%,Bid Set 6 Proposed Site Habitat Improvement Plan-West 75%, 100%,Bid Set 7 Proposed Site Habitat Improvement Plan-East 75%, 100%,Bid Set 8 Grading and Structure Control Point Tables 75%, 100%,Bid Set 9 Proposed Site Cross-sections 75%, 100%,Bid Set 10 Proposed Side Channel Inlet and Outlet Cross-sections and Profile 75%, 100%,Bid Set 11 Trager Road Realignment-Plan and Profile 1 75%, 100%,Bid Set 12 Trager Road Realignment-Plan and Profile 2 75%, 100%,Bid Set 13 Trager Road Realignment-Plan and Profile 3 75%, 100%,Bid Set 14 Trager Road Realignment-Plan and Profile 4 75%, 100%,Bid Set 15 Trager Road Realignment-Alignment Control Table 75%, 100%,Bid Set 16 Trager Road Realignment-Typical Roadway Section and Details 75%, 100%,Bid Set 17 Parking Area Plan&Details 75%, 100%,Bid Set 18 Storm Drainage,Utility,&Miscellaneous Roadway Details 75%, 100%,Bid Set 19 Habitat Structure Type 1 and 2 Plan and Section 75%, 100%,Bid Set 20 Engineered Log Jams A&B Type 3 Plan and Section 75%, 100%,Bid Set 21 Engineered Log Jams A&B Type 3 Layering Plan 100%,Bid Set 22 Engineered Log Jam C Type 3 Plan and Section 75%, 100%,Bid Set 23 Engineered Log Jam C Type 3 Layering Plan 100%,Bid Set 24 Log Structure Miscellaneous Details 100%,Bid Set 25 TESC and Water Management Plan-West 75%, 100%,Bid Set 26 TESC and Water Management Plan-East 75%, 100%,Bid Set 27 TESC and Water Management Details and Notes 75%, 100%,Bid Set 28 PlantingPlan-West 75%, 100%,Bid Set 29 PlantingPlan-East 75%, 100%,Bid Set 30 Planting Schedule and Control Point Table 75%, 100%,Bid Set 31 Planting Details and Notes 75%, 100%,Bid Set ..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 5 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Herrera will calculate potential maximum scour during flood events at the proposed logjam structures to support design of scour countermeasures, using hydraulic model output generated in Task 2.1. It is expected that piles will be needed for logjam structure foundations. Herrera will calculate hydraulic loads and earth surcharge loads due to back fulling at these structures to support pile design analysis. Geotechnical information generated in Task 7 will be used to complete these calculations. To accompany the 75% design plans, Herrera and URS will also prepare a preliminary engineer's estimate of construction cost in bid tab format. The preliminary construction cost estimate will be based on 2012 R.S. Means Site Work and Landscape Cost Data,WSDOT Unit Bid Analysis data,prevailing wage rates, vendor quotes, recent bid results on similar Herrera projects, and relevant bid price data from recent City projects. Estimates will be prepared in spreadsheet format with a contingency agreed upon in consultation with the City. An outline of expected special provisions needed to supplement the standard specifications for construction will be prepared in this task. The 75% design for relocation of Frager Road S. will include the following: 1. Generate further roadway realignment data such as alignment control points and curvature information needed for precise construction to satisfy King County standards. 2. Modify the 30% site grading and roadway realignment plans at the eastern edge of the site to accommodate a small parking area for 8 vehicles along the south side of the road. Define parking area location, geometry and access driveway locations(s) in coordination with King County. 3. Design of temporary (construction) and permanent traffic signage. 4. Coordination with appropriate utilities for Frager Road S. demolition and associated removal, abandonment and relocation of utilities that are in the existing road corridor. 5. Prepare additional details not included in the preliminary design plans, including: a. Roadway sections b. Guardrail c. New right-of-way limits d. Eight stall parking area layout e. Superelevation design f. Roadside vegetated filter strip stationing/limits Assumptions ■ All drawings will be drafted using AutoCAD/Civil3D 2012 software to current City standards. ■ Where applicable, Herrera and URS will reference City standard drawing details. ■ The 75% design information will contain all necessary information for permit applications, and will form the basis for later detailed design work. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 6 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ All drawings will meet requirements of Appendix D, Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18—January 2012. ■ All drawings will meet KCDDES requirements for site plans in support of the Shoreline Substantial Development; and Clearing and Grading permits. The plans indicated in Table 1 will be submitted to KCDDES in support of permits. ■ Project construction special provisions will reference the WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. ■ The City will be responsible for any additional site survey needs of existing conditions in support of design and permit applications. Herrera will coordinate with the City on additional survey needs. ■ The 75% design information will include sufficient detail to support HEC- RAS model development(Task 2.1) and environmental permit applications (Task 10). ■ Herrera will refine design of the side channel inlet logjam structures in coordination with King County regarding recreational user safety issues, while seeking to maximize their habitat value and function to prevent sedimentation that could hinder hydraulic connectivity of the mainstem channel and side channel at lower flows. ■ Herrera will evaluate alternative means of accomplishing effective work area isolation/dewatering during construction of side channel connection points with the mainstem river channel. ■ Existing Frager Road S. right-of-way and parcel ownership information has been researched and included in correct position on the topographic base maps for use in the roadway design and determination of future right of way takes for the revised road alignment. This information will be furnished by the City of Kent. ■ Design plans will include proposed location of new roadway right-of-way limits, but legal descriptions and exhibits necessary for right-of-way acquisition will be prepared by the City of Kent. ■ The Frager Road S. bridge over Mullen Slough at the west end of the project site will remain, and the new roadway alignment will end at or near the existing eastern bridge approach. No new bridge structure or existing bridge modifications will be included in the project design. ■ Roadway project design will only include relocation of the existing 2" water main within the new road right-of-way. No other underground or overhead utilities are included in the design of the project. ■ There is no illumination design included as part of the project design. Deliverables ■ 75% design plans—one electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)format. ■ Outline of project specifications ■ Preliminary construction cost estimate—electronic file in tabular format prescribed by the City. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 7 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ Comment response matrix for the City and permit reviewers to comment on the design and inform later design drafts. Task 5 — Final (100%) Design Plans, Specifications & Estimate Herrera and URS will prepare final (100%) design plans, special provisions, and engineer's estimate of construction cost to facilitate final City approval of the contract documents for a "bid-ready" project(as defined in the Deliverables section below). The budget for this task is based on preparing the drawings listed in Table 1. The 75% design submittal and comments received from the City on the 75% submittal will form the basis for the detailed design work conducted in this task If permit agencies provide comments that require a change in design, those comments will be addressed in this task. To accompany the 100% design plans, Herrera and URS will also prepare a final engineer's cost estimate in bid tab format with quantities based on design revisions made after the 75% submittal. The estimate will be prepared in a tabular format prescribed by the City with a small contingency. As part of the 100% submittal package, Herrera and URS will write special provisions supplementing Divisions 2 through 9 referencing the WSDOT/APWA 2012 Standard Specifications. City comments on the specifications outline submitted with the 75% design plans will be incorporated. As part of the 100% submittal package, Herrera will prepare a comment response matrix that provides a response to the City's comments on the 75% design and if necessary,request for additional input from the City. Assumptions ■ All drawings will be drafted using AutoCAD/Civil3D 2012 software to current City standards. ■ Where applicable, Herrera and URS will reference City standard drawing details. ■ The City will be responsible for writing contract specifications for Division 1 (General Requirements) ■ Where applicable, Herrera and URS will make use of the City's general special provisions. ■ All drawings will meet requirements of Appendix D, Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18—January 2012. ■ The 100% design work will proceed once the City provides comments on the 75% design submittal materials. ■ The City will submit one consolidated set of comments from City staff on the 75% design submittal that have been cross-referenced to eliminate conflicting comments. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 8 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Deliverables ■ Final (100%) design plans—electronic files in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) and AutoCAD file formats. ■ Final (100%) construction cost estimate—electronic file in tabular format. ■ Final (100%) special provisions in Microsoft Word format. ■ Comment response matrix indicating how City and permit agency comments were reflected in the final design plans. Task 6 — Bid Document Preparation If there are any final, minor City comments on the 100% design submittal, Herrera and URS will address those comments in this task to prepare the final plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate suitable for contract bidding. Herrera and URS will review and comment on the special provisions written by the City for Division 1 to support finalization of the entire contract bid package. Assumptions ■ The final design plans will be stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer. ■ The City will be responsible for preparing bid forms, assembling appendices/attachments to the contract documents, and photocopying plan sets. Deliverables ■ Bid-ready design plans—electronic files in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) and AutoCAD file formats, and one camera-ready hard copy set of signed plan sheets. ■ Bid-ready construction cost estimate—electronic file in tabular format. ■ Bid-ready special provisions for Divisions 2 through 9 —electronic file in Microsoft Word format. Task 7 — Geotechnical Analysis and Design Recommendations This task includes all geotechnical efforts that will be needed for other tasks in this scope of work. 75% Design Analysis Slope Design and Performance Analysis The governing geotechnical design concern for the project is the performance of the new slopes during static and seismic loading, as both the newly aligned Frager Road S. and the existing SR 516 roadway could be adversely affected if slope instability occurs. The conditions of most concern are during static loading when water in the channel is dropping after flooding(rapid drawdown), and during the seismic shaking when lateral spread deformations could occur as the sandy soils liquefy. Geotechnical analyses performed to date and presented in the URS June 8, 2010 Geotechnical Design Memorandum have been limited to conceptual slope geometries and ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 9 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK water levels, together with seismic design parameters developed using the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). Accordingly,work proposed for the 75% design development includes slope stability analyses for the grading plan slope geometries and expected hydraulic-hydrologic conditions. The static and seismic stability analyses will be performed using Slope-W software, and will be performed at three typical locations that are acceptable to the City and the design team. The seismic analysis will be performed using approaches and parameters that are consistent with the current 2009 IBC and with the current WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. The updated lateral spread analysis will be performed using empirical methods, i.e. in the same manner as performed for the original evaluation presented in the URS memorandum of June 8, 2010. As the distribution of cone penetrometer probes and test pits advanced to date has mainly targeted the new channel location, information to establish north-south oriented soil profiles for use in understanding lateral spread potential is somewhat lacking. To address that situation, one of three new cone penetrometer probes will be located south of previous probe CPT-2 where it will serve to enable a profile to be developed in the west half of the site. URS will examine how the assumed favorable performance of this section of Green River embankment during the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake can be used to provide a better understanding of the likely future performance during seismic shaking. Logjam Structure Foundation Design and Construction An additional geotechnical aspect of the 75% design development that has not yet been addressed is the analysis of pile foundations for engineered logjams, as well as construction concerns related to the logjams. The work will include an investigation of the soil conditions at the logjam locations, estimates of the required depth of embedment for steel H-pile and timber pile options and the allowable vertical (downward and uplift) loads of the piles versus depth of embedment, recommendations regarding pile lateral load versus deformation performance (p-y curve parameters including appropriate multipliers), recommendations regarding cut slope inclinations and conceptual shoring methods along with shoring design parameters for access to logjam foundations, and recommendations regarding dewatering and related concerns during logjam construction. Additional subsurface investigation will be performed, consisting of an approximately 40-foot deep cone penetrometer probe near two of the three proposed logjam locations shown in the preliminary design plans. The probes will provide a continuous record of soil conditions over the full depth of the probe, and cone tip and side friction resistance for use in estimating soil strength parameters. The probes will be used to assess the drivability of timber piles given the possible presence of dense sand to gravelly sand zones within the depth of embedment. This analysis will be coordinated with scour calculations developed in Task 4. Roadway Embankment and Related Earthwork Considerations Some new analysis may be required in support of the design of the pavement section for the re- aligned roadway, including estimates of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or modulus of subgrade reaction (k) values, and earthwork considerations related to subgrade preparation and compacted fill placement. The design parameters table from the original geotechnical design memorandum ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 10 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK will be updated if needed, depending on the plan for reuse of on-site materials or importing of offsite fill soil. All analyses will include preparation and QA review of calculation packages supporting the design effort. The deliverable product to the City of Kent will be a Geotechnical Design Memorandum—75% Design. An internal deliverable will be review comments on the draft 75% drawings and construction cost estimate related to geotechnical aspects of these documents. Final(100%)Design Analysis URS will review the final drawings, specifications and construction cost estimate from the geotechnical perspective, and provide review comments as a deliverable to the design team. No additional analysis will be performed at this stage. Assumptions ■ Existing subsurface exploration data will be sufficient for the appropriate geotechnical analyses through final design. • Slope stability analyses at three representative locations will be sufficient to assess the stability conditions for design. ■ Two types of piles will be considered for use in design of engineered logjams. ■ Project boundary stops just east of Mullen Slough, and the project will not include a new bridge or culvert there. ■ The memorandum produced in this task will not be subject to comments by the City that would require subsequent revisions. ■ Input from WSDOT regarding potential liquefaction induced lateral spread effects on the existing SR 516 roadway will be obtained by the City early in the 75% effort. Deliverables ■ Geotechnical Design Memorandum—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file format and one hard copy. Task 8 — Cultural Resources Analysis The scope of work for this task is based on a preliminary field investigation of the property conducted in May 2010 and on the recommendations presented in the report documenting that investigation (McDaniel 2010). The following tasks are proposed: Define the Area of Potential Effect(APE). The APE should be determined in consultation with tribes/agencies and should define the primary impact area where direct effects would occur (e.g., footprint of ground disturbance) as well as areas where such activities as heavy equipment staging areas and potential off-site sediment disposal areas would occur. ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 11 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Complete surface and subsurface survey. Based on previous fieldwork conducted at the site, a complete archaeological inventory can only be conducted following at least selective removal of blackberry vegetation from the site. In consultation with tribes and agencies, mechanical removal of vegetation should be conducted with a qualified, professional archaeologist present to observe the topsoil,focusing on areas of lrnown activity (e.g., former homesites), as well as systematic interval transects. Because of the sensitive nature of the project area and the extensive amount of soil that will be removed for the project, a program of subsurface reconnaissance consisting of systematic shovel probing will be conducted to identify potentially- significant buried resources. This investigation could occur in conjunction with the vegetation removal and surface inventory, or at a later date. Subsurface investigation will be conducted principally within the areas proposed for soil removal and should be completed in sufficient time for identification, evaluation and mitigation of potentially significant archaeological findings, should they be encountered. Record known and newly identified historic and archaeological resources. Two resources are currently lrnown to be present within the project area and will require complete documentation. The first of these is the Downey Bridge archaeological feature, which will be formally recorded as an archaeological resource. If avoidance of the Downey Bridge archaeological remains is not possible, the Downey Bridge Site will require evaluation for NRHP eligibility. Second, archaeological site 45KI208H, the Downey Hop Barn, is documented as present within the project site. Remnants of the historic structures may be identifiable archaeologically even though the structures have been razed. Remains of old privies,wells, or other historic features and structures may also be identifiable. A site boundary for the bam and homesite will be identified during the field inventory and the site form currently on file at DAHP will be updated. Identified archaeological remains will be evaluated for NRHP-eligibility since avoidance of the historic farmstead area is not anticipated to be practicable. Any additional resources identified during the course of the surface or subsurface inventories will also require complete documentation. All DAHP forms required for the permit application will be provided in the appropriate electronic and/or hard copy format. Prepare a technical report.A complete technical report documenting the results of the archaeological investigation and recommendations for additional work will be prepared. Given that the project would remove large amounts of soil and that the Downey Farmstead is located in an area highly sensitive for cultural resources, concerns for cultural resources will be present throughout the duration of the project. Consequently, the report will include a discovery plan which will outline protocols to be followed in the event of unanticipated discoveries during construction. Assumptions ■ No more than one additional historic or archaeological resource will be identified in the project area. • Subsurface investigations will require no more than 60 shovel probes. ■ The shovel probes will be hand excavated holes approximately 2 feet square in plan dimension and 2 feet deep. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 12 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ The City of Kent will be responsible for clearing vegetation along selected corridors throughout the site to provide access for the shovel probing and other survey activity. Deliverables ■ Cultural Resources Analysis Report-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file format and one hard copy. ■ Forms for DAHP permit application completely filled out Task 9 — Final Design Report Herrera and URS will prepare a draft and final Design Report that summarizes all relevant design assumptions, decisions, and calculations, including but not limited to: pile, scour, and logjam and habitat structure stability calculations, connectivity of the side channel inlet and a flood and erosion hazard and risk assessment, as well as roadway design calculations. Assumptions ■ A draft Design Report will accompany the 75% design submittal. ■ The Design Report will satisfy requirements of the SRFB Final Design Deliverables. ■ The draft Design Report prepared under this task will be subject to one round of review and comment by the City. ■ Comments on the draft Design Report will be incorporated by Herrera and URS into the final Design Report, to be submitted with the 100% (final) PS&E. Deliverables ■ Draft Design Report—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) file format and one hard copy. ■ Final Design Report—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) file format and one hard copy. Task 10 - Environmental Documentation and Permitting This task covers all anticipated environmental documentation and permitting for the project. Task 10.1 —Critical Areas Report In support of permits and critical areas review by regulatory agencies, Herrera will prepare a Critical Areas Report(CAR) in accordance with King County Code (KCC) and methods and guidance prescribed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Information on existing wetlands, streams, and associated buffers will be included from the Wetland and Stream Delineation report that was prepared as part of the Downey Farmstead Restoration Feasibility Study (Herrera 2010). This includes the results of the delineation; classifications; ratings; conditions; and water quality, hydrology, and habitat functions. Herrera ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 13 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK biologists will visit the site to determine if existing conditions have changed since preparation of the previous report and if necessary, make revisions within the CAR. In addition, the CAR will include the following elements: ■ Project activities and demonstration of how the project achieves alteration conditions that apply to project activities according to KCC 21A.24.045. ■ Critical areas mapped by King County iMAP ■ Wildlife habitat conservation areas including active breeding sites per KCC 21A.24.382 and necessary mitigation measures to avoid impacts during construction ■ Mitigation sequencing per KCC 21A.24,125, including impact avoidance, minimization,rectification, and compensation ■ Permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands, streams, buffers, and wildlife habitat conservation areas ■ Evaluation of whether an alteration exception is acceptable for temporary or permanent impacts to buffers resulting from realignment of Frager Road S. and the small parking facility ■ Compensatory mitigation plan that addresses permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers ■ Compensatory mitigation goal, objectives, and performance/success criteria ■ Monitoring plan for evaluating success of compensatory mitigation measures including a monitoring schedule ■ Contingency plan in the event of a failure of mitigation or of unforeseen impacts. Assumptions ■ Per KCC 21A.24.045, anticipated project activity designations include construction of new public road right-of-way structure on unimproved right-of-way and habitat restoration or enhancement project. ■ King County critical areas that will be addressed in the CAR include wetlands, streams, buffers, and wildlife habitat conservation areas. ■ King County critical areas applicable to the site that will be addressed in other reports (e.g., geotechnical,hydrology, and hydraulics reports) include critical aquifer recharge areas, flood hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. ■ The CAR will not address King County requirements for financial guarantees, critical area markers and signs, or notices of critical areas. ■ Realignment of Frager Road S. will not result in permanent impacts to wetlands. ■ Permanent impacts to wetlands will be limited to minor conversions of vegetated wetland habitat to stream channels where side channels connect to the main river. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 14 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ All permanent and temporary impacts will be mitigated on site by establishing wetlands adjacent to proposed side channels and through buffer enhancement. ■ Herrera biologists will review available information including the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database to determine if the site contains wildlife habitat conservation areas per KCC that are associated with bird or bat breeding habitat. In addition, Herrera biologists will conduct a site visit to evaluate presence of breeding habitat on and surrounding the site. Deliverables ■ Draft Critical Areas Report for City review-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. ■ Final Critical Areas Report-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. Task 10.2 —Endangered Species Act Compliance The project is subject to Endangered Species Act(ESA) compliance because it has a federal nexus including the need for a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps and funding from the Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund(PCSRF) managed by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB). ESA-listed species that will be affected by the project include Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and bull trout managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). ESA compliance will be achieved under one or more of the following options: ■ Limit 8 under Section 4(d) of the ESA will achieve ESA compliance for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steethead if the project satisfies characteristics described in the checklist for self-certification of proposed habitat restoration activity consistency with the Habitat Restoration Program, 4(d) Rule, Limit 8 (only applies to NOAA-managed species). ■ ESA Section 6(c)(1) exemption from take for bull trout that applies to projects implementing habitat enhancement measures. ■ Programmatic Biological Assessment for Fish Passage and Restoration in Washington State (PBA). Assumptions ■ Herrera will coordinate with the City, Corps, and SRFB as necessary to determine the appropriate option(s) listed above for complying with ESA. ■ If ESA compliance can be achieved through a combination of Limit 8 and Section 6(c)(1) exemption, Herrera will complete the self-certification checklist form. ■ Herrera will coordinate with the City to have the form reviewed, signed, and submitted with the JARPA to the Corps in support of the Section 404 permit(see Task 10.5). awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 15 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ If ESA compliance cannot be achieved through a combination of Limit 8 and Section 6(c)(1) exemption, ESA compliance will be achieved under the PBA ■ If ESA compliance is pursued under the PBA, Herrera will prepare a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF) that justifies how the project meets the criteria outlined in the PBA. ■ Herrera will prepare a draft self-certification form or SPIF for City review. ■ Following one review cycle, Herrera will incorporate consolidated City comments on the draft self-certification form or SPIF,whichever is applicable. ■ Herrera will coordinate with the City to have the SPIF reviewed, signed, and submitted with the JARPA to the Corps in support of the Section 404 permit(see Task 10.5). ■ This scope does not include preparation of a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation. Deliverables ■ Draft self-certification form or SPIF for City review-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. ■ Final self-certification form or SPIF --electronic file in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file format and one hard copy. Task 10.3 — SEPA Environmental Checklist In support of State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) compliance, Herrera will prepare an Environmental Checklist in support of a Clearing and Grading permit from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KCDDES). The checklist will include project information on background and environmental elements (earth, air,water, plants, animals, energy and natural resources, environmental health, land and shoreline use, housing, aesthetics, light and glare, recreation, historic and cultural preservation, transportation,public services, and utilities). Assumptions ■ The project will not have any significant impacts on environmental elements requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Should an EIS become necessary, a scope and budget amendment will be needed. ■ Completion of the Environmental Checklist will rely on information contained in other documents prepared for the project and project design elements (e.g., temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, traffic plan, storm water pollution prevention plan, etc.). • Some environmental elements will not apply to the project (e.g., housing, light and glare). ■ Information collected as part of Task 10.1 will be used to complete related sections of the Environmental Checklist. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 16 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ The geotechnical report prepared in Task 7 for the project will be used to answer questions related to the earth element. ■ Herrera will prepare a draft Environmental Checklist for City review. ■ Following one review cycle, Herrera will incorporate consolidated comments on the draft provided by the City to create the final Environmental Checklist. ■ The City will sign the Environmental Checklist ■ The Environmental Checklist will be submitted to KCDDES with the Land Use Permit Application (see Task 10.5) Deliverables ■ Draft SEPA Environmental Checklist for City review -- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. ■ Final SEPA Environmental Checklist-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file format and one hard copy. Task 10.4 —JARPA Herrera will prepare a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form and supporting figures in support of acquiring permits from the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and KCDDES. Herrera will prepare the application form including information pertaining to the City as the applicant and property owner,project location, project description,wetlands, streams, and necessary permits. Herrera will prepare JARPA figures according to Corps formatting guidelines including a vicinity map, property ownership information,plan views, and representative cross-sections. The JARPA figures will identify all work proposed in wetlands and waterward of the ordinary high water mark including quantities of excavation and fill. These figures will be based on 75% design plans prepared in Task 4. Assumptions ■ Herrera will prepare up to six JARPA figures for the project site including vicinity map, property owners, existing site, proposed site plan showing limits of work, and typical cross sections. ■ Names and addresses of the property owners adjacent to the project, and their direct neighbors will be shown on a JARPA figure. The City will provide the data to Herrera. ■ Herrera will prepare a draft JARPA for City review. ■ Following one review cycle, Herrera will address consolidated City comments on the draft and prepare the final JARPA. ■ No substantive revisions or supplements to the JARPA will be needed following submittal to permitting agencies. ■ Herrera will be the authorized agent and will submit the JARPA to the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and KCDDES (Task 10.5). ■ The City will pay all permit application fees. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 17 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Deliverables ■ Draft JARPA and figures for City review-- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. ■ Final JARPA and figures -- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF)file format and one hard copy. Task 10.5 —Permitting Coordination Herrera will provide necessary permitting coordination in support of permits from King County, the Corps, and WDFW including pre-application meetings/conferences, completion of supplemental permit application documentation (if needed in addition to the original JARPA), submittal of permit application packages, and follow-up coordination to respond to agency comments. The following permits are anticipated for the project: ■ CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities) from the Corps ■ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW ■ Coverage under Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit ■ Clearing and Grading Permit from KCDDES ■ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from KCDDES ■ Critical Area Alteration Exception (CARE) Permit from KCDDES. ■ Right-of-Way Use Permit from KCDDES. The following are approvals and reviews associated with these permits that are anticipated for the project: ■ ESA compliance (see Task 10.2) ■ Section 106 National Historic and Preservation Act compliance (see Task 8) ■ SEPA compliance (see Task 10.3) ■ Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) Consistency ■ KCDDES clearing and grading plan review ■ KCDDES critical area review and inspection ■ KCDDES drainage review ■ KCDOT road constructability review. Informational and Pre-Application Meetings Herrera will arrange, coordinate, and participate in informational and pre-application meetings in support of obtaining necessary permits and approvals. A pre-application meeting on-site with representatives of the Corps, WDFW, and other interested parties (e.g., KCDDES, the Muckleshoot Tribe) will take place with the objective of presenting the preliminary project plans and soliciting feedback ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 18 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK An informational meeting will take place at KCDDES in support of the Critical Area Alteration Exception permit. A pre-application meeting will take place at KCDDES with the objective of confirming necessary permits, submittal requirements, and permit fees. Preparation for the pre-application meeting will require the following tasks: ■ Prior to the meeting, Herrera will complete a Pre-Application Meeting Request Form and compile all necessary supporting materials including Certification of Applicant Status form, Certification and Transfer of Applicant Status form(if desired by City), Affidavit for Application form, meeting agenda, project proposal, preliminary plans, technical reports, and SEPA Environmental Checklist. ■ Herrera will produce enough copies of meeting materials for each person requested to attend including KCDDES staff and project team staff, plus two additional copies. ■ Herrera will schedule a submittal drop-off appointment with the KCDDES Permit Center Staff. ■ Prior to the submittal drop-off, Herrera will meet with the City to obtain signatures and pre-application meeting fee. ■ The pre-application meeting will take place at least 2 weeks after the pre- application meeting submittal drop-off. Herrera will prepare meeting minutes and distribute electronic copies to the meeting participants on the project team. Permit Applications Packages and Forms Herrera will prepare and submit the following anticipated permit applications: ■ JARPA(see Task 10.4) for submittal to Corps, Ecology,WDFW, and KCDDES ■ CZMA Consistency Form for submittal to the Corps or Ecology ■ Clearing and Grading Permit Application for submittal to KCDDES ■ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application for submittal to KCDDES ■ Critical Area Alteration Exception Application for submittal to KCDDES Herrera will compile necessary supporting documentation for each permit application and submit permit application packages to the regulatory agencies. JARPA packages for the Corps, Ecology, and WDFW will be mailed or emailed. Herrera will compile and submit supporting materials specific to each regulator agency including the JARPA, figures, self-certification checklist form and/or SPIF (ESA compliance), CZMA Consistency Form, Critical Areas Report, Cultural Resources Report, and project plans. ,,..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 19 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK Herrera will schedule and attend an intake meeting at the KCDDES Permit Center for submittal of all KCDDES permit application packages. Herrera will compile and submit supporting information for the Clearing and Grading permit including additional forms and documentation that was not previously submitted during the pre-application meeting process, requirements identified during the pre-application meeting, permit submittal form, a Clearing and Grading Application Fee Worksheet, permit fee,plans, calculations, technical reports, JARPA, and copies of other permits already obtained. Additional permit submittal materials for the Shoreline Substantial Development permit will include a permit application form, legal description, assessor's map, shoreline management questionnaire, level-one drainage analysis (if necessary), conceptual drainage plan, and permit fee. In addition, Herrera will submit the Critical Area Alteration Exception application form at the KCDDES intake meeting. Assumptions ■ Herrera will coordinate and participate in up to two pre-application meetings and one informational CAAE meeting ■ Herrera will arrange to obtain necessary signatures on forms from the City ■ The City will be responsible for all permit fees and pre-application meeting fees ■ The City will attend all pre-application meetings and permit intake meetings ■ The City will provide a legal description of the property in support of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application ■ A Forest Practices Act permit will not be necessary for the project ■ This scope of work does not include preparation of NEPA documentation, which is assumed to be completed by others ■ This scope of work does not include attending a public hearing before the King County Hearing Examiner ■ The NPDES construction stormwater permit will not be applied for under this design-phase contract. ■ A storm water pollution prevention plan(SWPPP),which is a requirement of the NPDES construction stormwater permit, will be prepared at a later date when construction is imminent, and is not included in this scope of work ■ A separate application will not be necessary for a Right-of-Way Use permit from KCDDES ■ This scope of work does not include necessary efforts in support of permit appeals processes. Deliverables ■ Permit applications—see above -- electronic file in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) file format and necessary hard copies. awn, farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 20 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants SCOPE OF WORK ■ Permit application supporting materials—electronic file in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file format and necessary hard copies. ■ Pre-application meeting minutes. Project Schedule 1. Final contract to Public Works Committee 06-04-12 2. Final contract to City Council 06-19-12 3. Sign contract after Council approval 06-22-12 4. Herrera team begins work 07-01-12 5. Cultural Resources and Critical Areas Final Reports 12-01-12 6. Permit applications submitted 12-01-12 7. Draft Final Design Report and 75% design plans 12-15-12 8. Final design and report package submitted 04-15-13 ..., farmstead design &permitting scope of work final.docx May 25, 2012 21 of21 Herrera Environmental Consultants KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 73 TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with the King County Flood Control District for Completion of Emergency Flood Protection Measures - Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the cooperative agreement for completion of Emergency Flood Protection Measures with the King County Flood Control District, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. SUMMARY: In 2009, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced that the Howard Hanson Dam had diminished capacity due to sidewall seepage. As a result, the Corps may have needed to release excess water into the Green River that would cause flooding within the City. The city of Kent, along with other Green River Valley cities, installed flood control devices (giant sandbags) on top of levees adjacent to the Green River to protect the City against potential flooding. In September 2011, the Corps announced that Howard Hanson Dam repairs had been completed and the capacity of the Dam had been restored to its pre-damaged state allowing for the removal of the giant sandbags from levees and recreational trails in Kent. The King Flood Control District has approved paying for 75% of the estimated $1,600,986 to remove the bags, subject to an approved agreement between the City and the King County Flood Control District. The remaining 25%, $400,246, would be funded by the stormwater utility, or through the District's "Opportunity Fund" in the form of a loan. The loan would be repaid by foregoing Kent's annual share of the District's Opportunity Fund, which is typically used for drainage projects. EXHIBITS: Cooperative Agreement for completion of Emergency Flood Protection RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT ("Agreement") is entered into on the last date signed below by and between the Parties, the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"); and KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("County"), (collectively referred to herein sometimes as the "Parties") with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. This Agreement is a contract setting the terms and conditions by which the City will complete the temporary emergency flood protection measures project, initially authorized by that certain Agreement for Flood Protection Services by and between the City and the County, dated October 15, 2009, as amended ("Initial Contract"), by removing the temporary flood protection barriers along the Green River and restoring and repairing the levees to their previous condition, and by which the County will reimburse the City for such work up to a specified amount and grant to the City rights of access and license as required for the City to complete the work. B. In 2009, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") announced that the Howard Hanson Dam, over which the Corps has jurisdiction and operational responsibilities, had a diminished capacity due to identified side wall seepage, and that the dam may have had to release waters in the coming months into the Green River that could cause flooding in the City. The Corps also purchased materials for flood protection purposes that it made available to the County, the City and other local jurisdictions, so long as the materials were used in accordance with the recommendations provided by the Corps, and were returned to the Corps once the threat posed by the diminished capacity of the Howard Hanson Dam had been addressed. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 1 of 9 C. Following the announcement by the Corps, the King County Executive issued an emergency proclamation declaring that the threat of releases of additional waters from the Howard Hanson Dam constituted an emergency, waived county procurement requirements for contracts related to the county's response to the emergency, and postponed County permitting procedures for public works. D. The Mayor and City Council of the City of Kent also issued an emergency proclamation that declared that the state of emergency conditions declared by the County were approved, confirmed and adopted by the City Council, and that provided that during the existence of the emergency, the Mayor of the City was authorized to implement administrative procedures deemed necessary to prepare for, respond to, stabilize and control the emergency, consistent with state law and local regulations. E. The King County Flood Control Zone District, a quasi municipal corporation and taxing district under the constitution of the State of Washington, whose purpose is to sponsor and implement flood control and protection measures ("District"), by resolution authorized $2,595,040.00 in funding to assist the City in undertaking temporary emergency flood protection measures and authorized the County, as Service Provider to the District, to enter into a contract with the City to provide this funding for the City to implement identified emergency flood protection measures. F. The City and the County on October 15, 2009, executed the Initial Contract, which authorized the City to undertake temporary emergency flood protection measures, consistent with Corps specifications, on County and District property, and the County to pay the City up to $2,595,040.00 as reimbursement for costs incurred by the City in undertaking such emergency measures. The Initial Contract also provided that upon a determination by the Corps that the Howard Hanson Dam had been restored to its design capacity, the City was to be responsible for removal of the flood protection materials, and restoration of the levees to their previous condition, to the extent impacted by the placement of the materials. The City was to pay the costs for such removal and restoration unless the County determined that funds were available to pay for some or all of such costs. G. On September 16, 2011, the Corps announced that significant repairs had been completed to the Howard Hanson Dam and that the capacity of the Dam had been restored to its pre-damaged state. H. On May 14, 2012, the Board of Supervisors of the District, through adoption of FCD Resolution No. FCD2012-02, identified up to $1,600,986.00 of COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 2 of 9 funds to be used by the City for actual costs incurred in removing materials previously installed by the City on the Green River levees and in restoring and repairing the levees, provided that 75% of such funds come from the District, and 25% of such amount ($400,247.00) be contributed directly by the City or by the City from loans by the District to the City from the District's Opportunity Fund, with 1% per annum to be charged to the City on the unpaid balance. I. The County, as the Service Provider to the District under the terms of that certain Interlocal Agreement Between King County and the King County Flood Control Zone District Regarding Flood Protection Services, as amended, and pursuant to FCD Resolution No. FCD2012-02, is authorized to enter into this Agreement to utilize funds from the District and to agree to the terms under which the Work, as hereinafter defined, is to be completed. J. The City and the County wish to set forth the terms and conditions under which the County will reimburse the City for actual costs incurred in completing the temporary emergency flood protection measures initiated in 2009 by removing the flood barrier materials from the levees and restoring and repairing the levees to their previous condition, up to the amount of $1,200,739.00, with 25% of the $1,600,986.00 amount identified by the District, or $400,247.00, being paid from loans from the District Opportunity Fund or from funds paid directly by the City, and under which the City will undertake and complete such removal, restoration and repair measures. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. All recitals are hereby ratified as part of this Agreement. 2. The City shall complete the work ("Work"), which is hereby defined to include: a. Removal of all temporary emergency flood protection material that was added to the Green River levee system by or on behalf of the City pursuant to the Initial Contract. The City shall provide notice to the County at least 10 days before such removal is to begin, and the County shall have the right to have personnel present during such removal for the purposes of monitoring the activities associated with the removal. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 3 of 9 b. Provision of notice to the Corps of the removal of such materials and coordination with the Corps on the return to the Corps of any materials and containers originally provided by the Corps that the Corps determines should be returned. The Corps shall have full discretion in terms of what materials it wishes to have returned, and those that it does not. If the Corps determines that specified materials originally provided by the Corps should not be returned, then the City in its discretion may keep such materials or dispose of them as provided in 2.c. below. c. Disposal of all materials determined to be waste, after consultation with the Corps. Such disposal, management and transport shall be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal directives, laws, and regulations. d. Restoration and repair of all areas where temporary emergency flood protection materials were placed, or were impacted by such placement, to the condition previous to the placement of the materials. The City shall provide notice of and coordinate such restoration activities with the County agencies having custodial responsibilities for such areas. The restoration and repair shall be deemed complete when the County issues its notice of Final Acceptance, as described in No. 15 below. 3. Any contracts that the City intends to enter into for performance of the Work shall be provided to the County at least ten (10) days prior to the intended date of execution. The County shall have the right to provide comments on such contracts, which the City shall take into account in good faith before executing the contract. Such contracts shall be in compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations governing the procurement of services as applicable to a local government. 4. If City determines in its own discretion that construction timing allows, change orders to the contracts entered into by the City for the performance of the Work that exceeds $100,000 shall be provided to the County five (5) days prior to the intended date of execution for County review and comment within three (3) days, which comments the City shall take into account in good faith before executing the change order. 5. The City agrees to maintain documentation of all Work performed sufficient to meet state and if applicable, federal, audit standards for the implementation of a capital project. The City agrees to maintain additional documentation that is reasonably requested by the County in order for the County COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 4 of 9 to accurately track expenditures and use of funds. City contract and internal documents will be made available to the County for review and/or independent audit upon request. 6. Subject to the provisions of No. 7 below, the County will reimburse the City for the actual costs incurred for the performance of the Work within sixty (60) days of submittal of the invoices to the County, up to an amount not to exceed $1,200,739.00, unless the Parties agree to extend the 60 day period to resolve disputes. Of the $1,600,986.00 amount of total costs identified by the District, the City is required to provide a 25% match, or $400,247.00, which may be paid from funds loaned to it by the District out of the District's Opportunity Fund, at a 1% per annum interest charge until paid in full, or be paid directly from funds held by the City. For payment of any given invoice, the County shall pay 75% of the invoice amount with funds from the District and 25% with loan funds from the District's Opportunity Fund, if such loans are requested by the City, or if no loan is requested, the City shall pay its 25% share of the invoiced amount. Any costs in excess of $1,600,986.00 required to accomplish the Work shall be paid by the City. 7. Until the County issues its Notice of Final Acceptance, as described in No. 15 below, the County may in its discretion retain 10% of the total costs of the Work. Upon issuance of the Notice of Final Acceptance, the County shall promptly pay the retained amount to the City. 8. The County, to the extent that its property interests and those of the District allow, hereby grants the City the right of access to the levees and license and permission for special use to perform the Work upon the levees, including those levees that are outside the City Limits and are identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (such levees, both within and outside the City limits are collectively referred to herein as the "Levees"). The County waives any applicable bond requirements. 9. The City shall be responsible for complying with all applicable laws, and obtaining all required permits in connection with the Work. 10. This Agreement and any activities authorized hereunder shall not be construed as granting any rights or privileges to any third person or entity, or as a guarantee or warranty of protection from flooding or flood damage to any person, entity or property, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as waiving any immunity to liability by the City, the County and/or the District, granted under state statute, including Chapters 86.12 and 86.15 of the Revised Code of Washington, or as otherwise granted or provided for by law. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 5 of 9 11. The City acknowledges and agrees that it will not allow any lien or encumbrance to be placed upon the real property interests and any other interests held by King County and/or the District in connection with the Work. If any lien or encumbrance is so placed, King County and/or the District shall have the right to remove such lien and charge back the costs of such removal to the City. 12. The City authorizes, but does not require, the County, its employees, contractors, agents and volunteers to visually inspect and monitor the condition and performance of the Work at all times during the duration of this agreement. 13. The City, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, invitees and volunteers acknowledge that the County and the District have made no representations as to the current condition of the Levees. The City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the County and/or District for any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, invitees and volunteers, to the extent not within any immunity conferred by law on the County and/or the District arising out of the Work performed on the Levees pursuant to this Agreement. Such indemnification shall extend to any claims, including all demands, suits and judgments, for damages arising out of injury to persons or damage to property, where such injury or damage is caused by, arises out of the City's negligence. The City shall by contract terms require its contractors to pass through indemnification to the District and County to the extent of their respective property interests. With the Dam restored to its previous functioning capacity, there still remains no guarantee that flooding will not occur. In the event that flooding does occur, the City, County and the District shall continue to enjoy the immunity for flood prevention measures conferred by law, and it is the intention of the Parties that the City, as contractor to the County, shall likewise be included within such immunity to the extent allowed by law, and to the extent not covered by the City's own immunity or its reasonable exercise of its police powers. Nothing in this No. 13 shall be construed to eliminate, reduce, or otherwise abrogate any immunity conferred on the City, County and/or District in connection with acts or omissions arising out of the Work. The indemnification provided for in this No. 13 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 14. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect until the Work is completed and the County has issued a Notice of Final Acceptance, as defined and described in No. 15 below, and the County has paid any retained amount to the City as provided in No. 7 above. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 6 of 9 15. The City shall complete that portion of the Work described in Nos. 2.a., 2.b., and 2.c. by November 1, 2012. The City shall complete that portion of the Work described in No. 2.d. by October 1, 2013. When the City determines that it has completed all elements of the Work, it shall provide written notice to County. Within 30 days of receipt of this notice, the County shall inspect the completed Work and notify the City of any deficiencies. The City will have 30 days to cure such deficiencies. Upon completion of the deficiencies to the satisfaction of the County, the County shall issue a notice of final acceptance ("Notice of Final Acceptance") to the City. In the event that the Parties do not agree regarding the existence of or cure of any deficiencies identified by the County, the dispute resolution provisions in No. 18 shall apply. 16. Solely for the purpose of enforcing the indemnification provision in No. 13 above, each Party expressly waives, with respect to the other Party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington; provided that, such waiver shall not preclude any indemnifying Party from raising such immunity as a defense against any claim brought against the indemnifying party by any of its employees. 17. Each Party recognizes that the other is self-insured and accepts such coverage for liability arising under this Agreement. Should any Party choose not to self-insure, that Party shall maintain and keep in full force and effect a policy of general liability insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence with an additional excess liability policy of not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) and will provide the other Party with a certificate of insurance and additional insured endorsement that will name the other Party as an additional insured. 18. The Parties will seek to resolve any disputes under the Agreement as follows: a. For disputes involving cost reimbursements, submittal of all relevant information to an independent Certified Public Accountant and/or a Construction Claims Consultant, if agreed upon by the Parties, for a non-binding opinion as to the responsibility. b. For disputes not involving cost reimbursements, these disputes shall be referred for informal resolution to the Public Works Director of the City, or the Director's designee, and the Director of the Water and Land Resources Division of the County, or the Director's designee. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 7 of 9 C. If the foregoing processes in 18.a. and 18.b. do not result in resolution, the Parties may mutually select any informal means of resolution and resort will otherwise be had to the Superior Court for King County, Washington. d. Each Party will be responsible for its own costs and attorney's fees in connection with the dispute resolution provisions of this Section 18. 19. This Agreement represents a full recitation of the rights and responsibilities of the parties and may be modified only in writing and upon the consent of both Parties. 20. The rights and licenses contained in this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the Parties, and their respective successors in interest and assigns. 21. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below unless a party gives notice of a change of address. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the address state below or such other addresses as may be hereinafter specified in writing. If to City: If to District and/or County: Tim LaPorte, Director Christie True, Director City of Kent King County DNRP Public Works Department 201 South Jackson St, Ste. 700 400 West Gowe Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Kent, WA 98032 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 8 of 9 22. The undersigned warrant that they have the authority duly granted by their respective legislative bodies to make and execute this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective on the last date signed below. CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY By: By: Suzette Cooke Its: Director of the Department Its: Mayor DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: City Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County City of Kent ATTEST: By: City Clerk for City of Kent COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF EMERGENCY FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES PROJECT Page 9 of 9 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7K TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Washington State Parks and Recreation Boating Safety Program Award - Accept MOTION: Accept the grant from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission in the amount of $19,045, amend the budget and authorize expendi- ture of the funds in accordance with the grant terms and conditions, subject to approval of final terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department has received the Marine Law Enforcement Grant from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission in the amount of $19,045. The grant will be used to fund officer overtime on Lake Meridian for the grant period of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. EXHIBITS: Award letter dated 6/7/12 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/12/12 BUDGET IMPACTS: No city matching funds required. �,STA1gp A O Don Hoch ems qz ��i ) Director STATE OF WASHINGTON '.... WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1111 Israel Hoad S.W. ® P.O. Box 42650 m Olympia, WA 985042650® (360) 9028500) TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (360) 6643133 wwwparks.wa.gov June 7, 2012 I i Chief Kenneth E. Thomas Kent Police Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Re: Recreational Boating Safety`Federal Financial Assistance Grant 'Letter of Award Dear Chief Thomas: The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed and accepted your application for a Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Federal Financial Assistance Grant and is awarding $19,045 to your agency. The grant is for the period July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013. Terms of Acceptance: Acceptance of a Federal Financial Assistance award carries with it the responsibility to be comply with the terms and conditions of the award. Acceptance is defined as the start of work, drawing down funds, or accepting the award,via electronic means. Awards are based on the application form, as approved by State Parks. The signed grant application contains the terms and conditions to which your agency has agreed.I urge you to carefully review your application (enclosed) so you are familiar with each requirement. Specifically you have agreed to: • Conduct on the water patrols in addition to those already required and paid for with State Vessel Registration Fees and local funds. • Complete a minimum of 150 vessel inspections, which includes at least 125 written vessel inspections and 25 visual spot inspections based on your RBS Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application. • Emphasize enforcement of: o Life jacket requirements; o Mandatory boater education (required to be carried by operators 40 years old and younger when operating a motor boat of 15 hp or more; o Boating under the influence of alcohol (BUI); and o "Rules of the road" and other operating regulations. • Participate in Operation Dry Water in June 2013. • Request reimbursement for approved expenditures only (see WAC 352-65-040, the ten elements necessary to accomplish the Recreational Boating Safety mission) and within the designated timelines. I would like to emphasize a few points with regards to reimbursement. o Invoices for reimbursement may be submitted no more often than monthly but no less than quarterly. If there are no grant expenditures for the quarter, an invoice billing is not required, however a Summary of Activities Report (A428) with supporting documents (i.e. yellow copies of vessel inspection forms and patrol vessel log sheets) is still required. o These grant funds may not be used to reimburse indirect costs. You may seek reimbursement for: • Salaries, benefits, and wages for officers who have completed state RBS training and conduct on the water patrols, to maintain existing staff levels, increase patrol time above the current level, or for overtime patrol hours. In general, officers paid with these funds must have completed a State Parks Recreational Boating Safety training course per WAC requirement. However, if an agency has a policy requiring two officers on a boat, then as long as one officer has completed state RBS training the second officer is not required to have done so but must be a fully commissioned officer. • Purchase, maintenance, and operation of patrol boats and patrol boat equipment to perform the RBS mission. This does not include equipment for recovery operations (dive equipment, side scan sonar, etc.), homeland security missions (night vision equipment, weapons, etc.) or other work unrelated to the RBS mission as determined by State Parks. • Providing instruction classes in Adventures in Boating to qualify graduates for the mandatory boater education card required by statute. Costs may include classroom supplies, light refreshments and other goods and services necessary to promote and teach classes. • Basic marine law enforcement training,or other courses, as determined by State Parks, for officers to complete the RBS mission. Contact the State Parks Boating Program prior to making expenditures for all other courses for compliance with the RBS mission. • Direct program administration costs. Submit the following forms to apply for reimbursement (those identified with an asterisk will be supplied by e-mail): • Marine Law Enforcement Chant Invoice Voucher (form A19)* to include names of officers performing patrols paid with these funds • Summary of Activities Report (form A428)* —due quarterly by the 15th following end of quarter • Yellow copies of the vessel inspection form—included with each quarterly report • Copies of vessel log sheets* for each patrol vessel and shift documents visual spot inspections reported each quarter on the Summary of Activities Report. Your signature on each Marine Law F,nforcement Grant Invoice Voucher certifies that your agency has completed the work and has retained copies of all the supporting documentation on file for audit purposes per the commitment in the Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application—State FY13. If you have questions regarding contract terms, expenditures or financial invoice billing, please contact Mark Kenny at (360) 902-8835 / mark.kennY(&parks.wa.gov or Laura Holmes at (360) 902-8843 / laura.holmes(a�,parks.wa.gov. Sin � Wade Alonzo, Boating Law Administrator Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Enclosures cc: Mark Kenny, Enforcement Specialist Contracts Fiscal Washington State Parks $ Recreational Boating Safety Program a roof, �. Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13 —July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 ssre,oksa Intent These grant funds are specifically intended to support local law enforcement efforts in reducing boating-related loss of life, personal injury, and property damage. These activities are tied to the U.S. Coast Guard's Strategic Plan of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program 2012 - 2016. These funds are intended to increase education and enforcement efforts and to stimulate greater local participation in boating safety and are not to supplant existing local funds or vessel registration funds used for boating safety programs. Eligibility Law enforcement agencies that operate approved boating safety programs under WAC 352-65 are eligible to apply for grants. To be eligible to receive the grant, the program must be an approved boating safety program at the time of award. In addition, State Parks must have received all of the reports and documentation your agency is required to submit to receive state vessel registration funds (VRF) as well as the requirements for the current FY 12 Federal Assistance Grants. How to Apply: 1. Fill out required information on page 5 and 6 of this application. Page 6 should be signed by the police chief or sheriff. Rename the file as you save it replacing the word `FINAL' in the file name with the name of the city or county you represent. Le. Thurston_FY13 RBS Fed Grant Application.doc 2. Email an electronic copy of the Microsoft Word file by May 25, 2012 to: sherri.sweencyaparks.wa.gov. 3. An original signed version must be received and date stamped by State Parks no later than May 29,2012. Mail signed copies to: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission ATTN: Boating Program/Sherri Sweeney 1111 Israel Road SW; PO Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-2650 Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 1 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—July 1,2012 to Ame 30,2013 j Grant Requirements Federal Assistance Grant Funds are provided to assist approved programs in carrying out the ten elements needed for Recreational Boating Safety Program Approval as described in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 352-65-040. These are recreational boating safety education and enforcement activities aimed at reducing boating-related loss of life,personal injury and property damage. Activities are tied to the U.S. Coast Guard's Strategic Plan of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program 2012 -2016. i By completing and submitting this application, the applicant is agreeing to the following terms: 1. Conduct the predetermined number of: 1) hours of on-the-water patrols and 2) vessel inspections and visual spot inspections as filled out in FY13 Patrol Hour and Inspection Targets on page 5 of this application. State Parks requires an average of at least one inspection com ll eted per hour of patrol. This may include visual spot inspections. 2. Expand patrols beyond those paid for with State Vessel Registration Fees and local funds. 3. Emphasize enforcement of: a. Life jacket requirements, including lifejackets not worn as required, insufficient lifejackets, and lifejackets found unserviceable or the incorrect size; b. Possession of the mandatory boater education card for operators required to carry it; c. Boat operation under the influence of alcohol (BUI) rules; and d. "Rules of the road" and other operating regulations. 4. Participate in Operation Dry Water in June 2013. 5. Follow the following procedures for requesting reimbursement. Invoices for reimbursement may be submitted no more often than monthly but no less than quarterly. a. Submit the following documents. i. A Marine Law Enforcement Grant Invoice Voucher (form A-19) including the Officer List Worksheet. When preparing the A-19 invoice,.please be sure all expenditures support the RBS mission and that explanations are provided for purchases of equipment and maintenance that occurred. Boating Program staff will review all billings and follow up on invoices if the billing is unclear. Copies of receipts may be requested to support reimbursement. ii. Summary of Activities Report(A-428) iii. Yellow copies of all written vessel inspections completed (P&R A-274) Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 2 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 iv. Copies of the vessel log sheet for each patrol vessel and shift (documenting spot inspections). v. Names of officers performing patrols paid with these funds. b. Reimbursement requests must be received and date stamped by State Parks by the following dates: October 31, 2012 for quarter 1 / January 31, 2013 for quarter 2 / April 30, 2013 for quarter 3 / July 31, 2013 for quarter 4. The timely submission of reimbursement requests allows proper time for the processing of payments. Submitting reimbursement requests after these dates could mean that your request is delayed. c. Unforeseen Circumstances: If, during any quarter, an agency is unable to meet the requirements of the grant (i.e. unable to meet the targeted number of enforcement hours or vessel inspections) it should submit a letter, signed by the police chief or sheriff, along with the reimbursement request explaining the reasons and mitigating circumstances. In extreme cases, State Parks may request these applicants to submit a plan within 30 days of the end of the quarter that describes steps the applicant will take to meet minimum requirements. In these cases, reimbursement requests may be deferred until the plan is received and approved by State Parks. d. Grantees are required to maintain records of all allowable expenditures for which grant dollars were spent and must make these records available to State Parks for review upon request. Expenditure records may include but are not limited to receipts, invoices, and timesheets. These records must be maintained for six years following the completion of the grant. Allowable Expenditures Grant funds may be used only for activities under WAC 352-65-040, the ten elements necessary to accomplish the Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) mission. If it is unclear if an expense meets these criteria, contact Mark Kenny at (360) 902-8835 or mark.kenny(c�parks.wa.gov to discuss the item before proceeding. Grant funds may not be used for indirect costs. Allowable expenses include but are not limited to: 1. Salaries, benefits, and wages for officers who have completed state RBS training and conduct on-the-water patrols, to maintain existing staff levels, increase patrol time above the current level, or for over-time patrol hours. In general, officers paid with these funds must have completed State Parks Recreational Boating Safety training per WAC requirement. However, if an agency has a policy requiring two officers on a boat, then as long as one officer has completed state RBS training the second officer is not required to have done so but must be a fully commissioned officer. Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 3 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13- July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 2. Purchase, maintenance, and operation of patrol boats and patrol boat equipment to perform the RBS mission. It does not include equipment unrelated to this mission such as equipment used in recovery operations (dive equipment, side scan sonar, etc.) or homeland security missions (night vision equipment, weapons, etc.), or any other unrelated equipment as determined by State Parks. 3. Providing instruction classes in Adventures in Boating to qualify graduates for the mandatory boater education card required by statute. Costs may include classroom supplies, light refreshments and other goods and services necessary to promote and teach classes. 4. Training courses for officers to complete the RBS mission. Definitions On-Water Law Enforcement Hours: Estimated hours that agency vessels will spend patrolling on .the water. These are the actual hours as documented on the patrol vessel hour meter or logbook and should not include time travelling to or from the water, nor time spent preparing for patrol. Vessel inspection — A written record of the review of applicable state requirements for a recreational vessel when contacted on the water, at ramps, docks, mooring areas, by trained personnel as documented using the State Parks vessel inspection form. For the purposes of this grant, documented inspections include those completed when patrolling on the water or at launch ramps, docks,floats, or other marine facilities on the water. Visual Spot Check — The observation of a vessel used on the water where an officer can visually confirm requirements for lifejacket and registration have been met. This can occur when performing patrol on the water and during other activities on shore such as launching/retrieving, conducting inspections, casual contact with the public, maintenance, training, or other work- related time such as during breaks or lunch. Each visual spot check must be documented properly on State Parks patrol vessel log sheet and include the date, location, registration number and other comments. Spot checks should generally include vessels within hailing distance. Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 4 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 IMPORTANT! Please fill in the requested information in each of the green-shaded boxes. The application will not be accepted unless it is completely filled out. Applications must be typed. Hand completed applications will not be accepted. i FY13.Patrol and Inspection Targets 1, P ovide the number ofvessels that will be used during patrol hours 1 2 Provzde the number of on water,taw enforcement hours that will be conducted �,, 480 ovurthe eutirerant periodif 3 Phase provide an estimate'of tN number of on water enforecinent hours during the follrawmg titriYO e periods: a.' eokends and Hohdays from Mcmorial Daythrough Labor Day. 280 b Extended Datrol shifts and weekr days from Memorial Dapw Ihrough Labor,,, 60' `Day. c. ) tirnate of the number of off-season pOtrol hours (October through May). 140' 4. Identify the inspections that well be.,completed during the gratit.period (July 1, 2012'to June 30f201�3):NOTE: State Park's;requries an average o£at least l•,inspeoxion perpatrol;hour, and this may include visual spot inspections; a. How many"Vessel Inspections will be`complefed? 125 b.i: How many Visual Spot Checks;will;be corripleCed? 25 Please briefly describe when you expect to conduct most of your enforcement hours and inspections and the purpose and need for any offseason patrol activities: We expect to utilize this funding for additional boating'(safety law enforcement on and around the boat launching area at Lake Meridian from July 1 through September 30,2012,dependent on weather conditions. The off-season hours will support preparing the vessel for winter storage,arranging for any necessary maintenance and preparing the vessel for use next spring. Off-season hours also include training course time for two officers in support of the RBS mission, Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 5 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 i I certify that I am authorized to obligate the agency listed below and that I am authorized to accept such funds and to guarantee that the funds will be used solely for expenditures to perform the terms and conditions detailed in this application. Authorized Representative: May 29, 2012 Signature Date Kenneth E. Thomas Print Name Chief of Police Title Grant Contact Information 1gelray Naaie: Dent Police Department Mailrig Address, 220 4t'Avenue S �itp State dip Kent, WA 98032 Primaryontact:4 Debra LeRoy En1ai1 dleroy kentwa.gou aflice:I'liorie.; 253-856-5856 M0Uile Poe r Secondary Contact;: Cindy White Eriiail - ewhitc kentwa. ov Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 6 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—Jnly 1,2012 to June 30,2013 i I certify that I am authorized to obligate the agency listed below and that I am authorized to accept such funds and to guarantee that the funds will be used solely for expenditures to perform the terms and conditions detailed Ithislpli ' n. Authorized Representative: - May 29, 2012 Signature Date Kenneth E. Thomas Print Name Chief of Police Title Grant Contact Information Agency Name Kent Police Department Mailing Address 220 4 ' Avenue S City State Zip Kent, WA 98032 Primary Contact: Debra LeRoy Email : dleroy kentwa.gov Office Phone 253-856-5856 Mobile Phone' Secondary Contact: Cindy White Email cwhite@kentwa.gov Office Phone 253-856-5873 Mobile Phone V Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 6 of Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13 —July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 Office Fhotie 253-856-5873 Mobile Phone., I i Washington State Parks Recreational Boating Safety Program Page 7 of 7 Federal Financial Assistance Grant Application State FY 13—July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7L TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Daljit Cove Off-Site Sewer, Bill of Sale - Accept MOTION: Accept the Bill of Sale for the Daljit Cove Off-Site Sewer project, permit No. 2074569, for 3 sanitary sewer manholes, and 188 linear feet of sanitary sewer line. SUMMARY: The Daljit Cove Sewer project is located at 22631 96th Place South. EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director BUDGET IMPACTS: None so ENT Ktv&# REcc-- zo?4S(o� WASH IN O T O N MAIL TO: ENGINEERING DEPAR MENT ATTN: .Tt�C{c1F �lC(cfJELL 220 4T AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 Z)Alsw CaQE. PROJECT: Qt=F-Z(= Sffn> LOCATION: 2-Z(03 f i PL . S, TAX ACCT NO: 747I0o ©O70 BILL OF SALE CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON THIS INSTRUMENT made this day of `I U W E 20053 by and between M hereinafter called "Grantors", and City of Kent,a municipal corporation of King County, State of Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee": WITNESSETH: That the said Grantors for a valuable consideration, does hereby grant, bargain, sell to Grantee the following described improvements: A. WATFRMAINS: together with a total of gate valves at S each, hydrants at S each and/or any other appurtenances thereto. NE)Klr. ON FROM TO (street, esmt, etc) Including linear feet at S per LF of (size & type) waterline. B. SANITARY SEWERS: Together with a total of 3 manholes at S Zeach and/or any other appurtenances thereto. I of4 Bill of Sale ON El m T— FROM TO (street, esmt,etc) wEsT or PL. s K&Sf- Including � PCB'linear feet at S -4O per LF of �� (size & type) PVC sewer line. C. STREETS; Together with curbs, gutters,sidewalks, and/or any other appurtenances thereto. N n ON FROM TO (street,esmt,etc) Including centerline LF at S per LF of (type) streets, Feet asphalt roadway. D. STORM SEWERS; Together with a total of manholes at$ each or a total of catch basins at S each, LF of biofiltration swale or drainage ditch with a total cost of S CF of detention pond storage with a total cost of S and/or any other appurtenances thereto. p� r ON FROM TO (street, esmt, etc) Including linear feet at S per LF of (size & type) sewer line. To have and to hold the same to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, The undersigned hereby covenants that it is the lawful owner of said property; and that the same is free from all encumbrances; that all bills for labor and material have been paid; that it has the right to sell the same aforesaid; that it will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demand of all person. The Bill of Sale is given on consideration of the agreement of the Grantee for itself, its successors and assigns to incorporate said utilities in its utility system and to maintain them as provided in the applicable City Ordinances. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed on this_�_day of ( , 20 . 2 of 4 Bill of Sale STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this IZ 0 l day of -J 4`'�r ,20 0 before me,the undersigned A Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,Personally appeared Id-LLj�kvvt 56,V&)1V to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged to me that he/she signed and sealed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my band and official seal this 30 #day of J01VP 20 aa��®®A�?rlfassss®� Notary Public in and f ®�® tO`. y ,® State of Washington, residing at ® a My Commission Expires: �I$-Y IUgRY tI'X 7 t �e®sue®®WAS®®0a®®e -.��i ! Y, ✓-t�✓r lawo The Bill of Sale is given and accepted pursuant to a motion duly made, seconded, and passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, King County, Washington, on the day of 20 I i i 3 of Bill ofSale i ADDENDUM TO BILL OF SALE CITY OF KENT le-WA, ' ECG q_a`7 4-5(,7 The figures used on the Bill of Sale for Cept 2E T = Ss project dated 1 b/2.&/27 ,were based on the "As-Built" Engineering/Plans dated tod r 2-0 fo S , for the same said �I C~Z l T— �V F OFF- Q 71= 5 r ject. the undersigne P.E. r land sun,cyor—is the person responsible for the preparation of the Bill of Sale and is an employee of `1 LLGE J the firm responsible for the preparation of the "As-Built' Engineering Drawings. Sig Iyure G1 `og 8 a S 6t Y I 4 of4 Bill of Sale Z KENT HA r Agenda Item: Bids — 9A TO: City Council DATE: June 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Green River Levee Flood Protection Large Super Sack Removal Pre-Bid MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract up to a maximum of $1,600,986, to remove flood protection measures related to the Howard Hanson Dam Repairs, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. SUMMARY: In 2009, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced that the Howard Hanson Dam had diminished capacity due to sidewall seepage. As a result, the Corps may have needed to release excess water into the Green River that would cause flooding within the City. The city of Kent, along with other Green River Valley cities, installed flood control devices (giant sandbags) on top of levees adjacent to the Green River to protect the City against potential flooding. In September 2011, the Corps announced repairs had been completed and the capacity of the Dam had been restored to its pre-damaged state allowing for the removal of the giant sandbags from levees and recreational trails in Kent. The City has issued an Invitation to Bid to remove the sandbags. The bid opening is scheduled for June 25, 2012. By providing early authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract; the contract process, the removal of the sandbags, and re-opening the trails for recreational purposes will be expedited. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The King Flood Control District has approved paying for 75% of the estimated $1,600,986 to remove the bags, subject to an approved agreement between the City and the King County Flood Control District. The remaining 25%, $400,246, would be funded by the stormwater utility, or through the District's "Opportunity Fund" in the form of a loan. The loan would be repaid by foregoing Kent's annual share of the District's Opportunity Fund, which is typically used for drainage projects. If the "Opportunity Fund" is used a 1% charge for interest would be levied against any outstanding balance. REPORTS FROM STAFF, COUNCIL COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES A. Council President B. Mayor C. Administration D. Economic & Community Development E. Operations F. Parks & Human Services G. Public Safety H. Public Works I. Regional Fire Authority J. Other K. Other KENT WASHINGTON OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES May 15, 2012 Committee Members Present: Dennis Higgins, Jamie Perry, Les Thomas, Chair The meeting was called to order by L. Thomas at 4:02 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED MAY 1, 2012. J. Perry moved to approve the Operations Committee minutes dated May 1, 2012. D. Higgins seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 2. APPROVAL OF CHECK SUMMARY REPORT DATED APRIL 16 - APRIL 30, 2012 D. Higgins moved to recommend Council approve the Check Summary Reports dated April 16 through April 30, 2012. J. Perry seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 3. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3996 TO EXTEND THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED FOR FLOOD PROTECTIN PURPOSES TO JANUARY 1, 2013. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has made satisfactory repairs and restored the flood protection. The proposed ordinance extends the time period by six months, with the option to extend another six months if necessary. If the structures are not removed by that date, the ordinance provides that a permit would be required. A bid process to remove the bags along the river went out today. Within the next month the city will be able to determine a removal schedule. At that time a letter of notification will be sent to the public. The public can remove their sandbags at any time and is suggested by Council to do so during the dry summer months. Use of the sand was discussed briefly as well as noting that resuming use of the trail will be determined by the condition of the trail after the bags are removed. J. Perry moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3996 to extend the waiver of certain permitting requirements for temporary structures constructed for flood protection purposes to January 1, 2013. D. Higgins seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 4. MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED FINANCIAL POLICIES AND FORWARD THIS MATTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2012 The policies were discussed at the previous Operations Committee. The Committee reiterated their support of the changes. It was recommended that this item go on the June 5 Council agenda under Other Business. Operations Committee Minutes May 15, 2012 Page: 2 J. Perry moved to recommend that the Operations Committee approve the recommended Financial Policies and forward this matter to the City Council meeting of June 5, 2012. D. Higgins seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m. by L. Thomas. Pamela Clark Operations Committee Secretary KENT ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES May 14, 2012 Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger, Bill Boyce. Perry called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes Councilmember Ranniger Moved and Councilmember Boyce Seconded a Motion to approve the April 9, 2012 Minutes. Motion PASSED 3-0. 2. Neighbors of West Hill Council - Resolution Program Coordinator Toni Azzola stated that the original West Hill Neighborhood Council dissolved and a new neighborhood council (a community of 1200 homes) was created. She introduced Neighbors of West Hill Council representatives: Chair Sandra Glover, Co-Chair Vivian Bruns, North Advocate Charlotte Dalbec, and West Advocate Don Bowers. Bruns stated that their diverse community appreciates the services Kent provides that will continue to assist their community in dealing with safety, traffic and beautification issues. Councilmember Ranniger Moved and Councilmember Boyce Seconded a Motion to recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which repeals Resolution 1781 and recognizes the Neighbors of West Hill Council Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. Motion PASSED 3-0. 3. Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) Update - Resolution Planner/GIS Coordinator Gloria Gould-Wessen stated that Economic and Community Development (ECD) staff identified the DSAP update as a priority in their 2012 work program and this update is based on Council's strategic goal to create urban centers. Gould-Wessen stated that through the process of updating the DSAP: (1)Staff will review what Kent has achieved and will update recommended strategic actions to reflect potential new directions, (2) Staff will expand the DSAP to function more like Kent's Comprehensive Plan to include Chapters such as Transportation, Land Use, Economic Development, Parks & Open Space, and Utilities, (3) Staff will complete a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) based on the DSAP update and will include an environmental analysis that will facilitate the permitting process and new development in downtown. The update effort will reach out to the community and will include stakeholders to hear what is going right and what is missing in downtown. Gould-Wessen stated that other city departments will be engaged to participate in this update. It is staff's belief that this update will facilitate new development and ensure that downtown will continue to have the successes like we see happening today. Gould-Wessen stated that the resolution is a necessary first step to initiate the DSAP update. Kent has established a procedure for amending the Comprehensive ECDC Minutes May 14,2012 Page 1 of Plan outside the annual updates and that procedure reflects the State's RCWs. To declare this action as an emergency means this issue is of community-wide significance that promotes public health, safety and general welfare whereby the DSAP meets those criteria. Once the resolution goes to the Full Council and is approved, staff will notify the State Department of Commerce that we are moving forward with the update. Staff will report back to this Committee. Councilmember Boyce Moved and Councilmember Ranniger Seconded a Motion to move forward a resolution to Kent City Council that declares an emergency to pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan. Motion PASSED 3-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Medical Mariivana Ordinance Planner Katie Graves stated that the intent of this hearing is to discuss zoning options for medical marijuana collective gardens. The Public Safety Committee stated at their April loth meeting that the Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC) should consider this issue at their next meeting and recommended that the ECDC recommend an ordinance to City Council to ban collective gardens. Graves stated that City Council did not pass Ordinance 4025 in January. Graves submitted five exhibits for the record: (1) Email dated May 10 from David Hallin supporting collective gardens specifically Herbal Choice. (2) Email dated May 12 from Eric Munson, a prevention specialist and drug and alcohol counselor, opposing collective gardens. (3) An article published by Huff Post Politics an internet newspaper and written by Tamar Todd a staff attorney for the Drug Policy Alliance supporting medical marijuana collective gardens. (4) A letter from John Worthington supporting collective gardens and opposing a ban. (5) A 3-page excerpt submitted at the hearing citing RCW's that govern collective gardens. Councilmember Ranniger moved and Councilmember Boyce seconded a Motion to accept the five exhibits into the record. Motion PASSED 3-0. Councilmember Perry declared the Public Hearing Open. The following people spoke in SUPPORT of medical cannabis collective gardens in Kent opposing the ordinance that would ban collective gardens: Philip Dowdy, 1608 E. Republican St. #303, Seattle, WA 98112; Ezra Eickmeyer, Statewide Lobbyist for Safe Access Alliance, 4930 Center Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325; John Worthington, 4500 SE 2nd Place, Renton, WA 98059; Kari Boiter, 4224 S 216th Place, Kent, WA 98032; Steve Sarich, representative for Cannacare; Toni Mills, 25000 180th Ave SE, Kent, WA 98042; Jane Coffron, 25657 29th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032; Jennifer LaDoux, 9721 S 248th St., Kent, WA 98030; David Hallin, 31678 Military Rd. S, Federal Way, WA 98001; John McArthur, 11018 SE 218th St., Kent, WA 98031; Laura Ellison, 600 Ellingson Rd., Apt I-3, Auburn, WA 98047; Steven Schneider, 5510 S 144th St., Tukwila, WA 98168; Matthew Zaborac, c/o Downtown Emergency Services Center (D.E.S.C.), PO Box 67145, 511 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98104; Koli Bolden, 27400 132nd Ave SE, Apt #G-205, Kent, WA 98042; Pam Larsen, 20615 SE 148th, Kent, WA 98042; Charles Lambert, 925 E. Maple St, Kent, WA 98030; Greta Carter, 452 University Way #67, Seattle, WA 98101; Michael Ranetta, 2007 S 232nd St., Des Moines, WA 98198; Neal Schanbeck, 93 Byrd Drive, WA; Colomba Tsang, 21628 43rd PI S, Kent, WA 98032 - submitted two binders of information on how medical marijuana is used to treat numerous medical diseases/illnesses; Michael Enos, 11805 SE 255th St., Kent, WA ECDC Minutes May 14,2012 Page 2 of 98030; Don Skakie, 4313 SE 2nd Place, New Castle, WA 98059; Robby Shaver, 25032 Lake Fenwick Rd, Kent, WA 98032; Steve Manzanares, 22816 126th Ave SE, Kent, WA 98031; Jonathan Blake, 22702 90th Way S, Kent, WA 98031; Jared Allaway, (Sensible Washington), 35810 16th Ave S #F303, Federal Way, WA 98003; John Tocher, (Sensible Washington), 13521 SE 161st Place, Renton, WA 98058; Douglas Hyatt, Attorney, 119 1st Avenue S, Suite 16, Seattle, WA 98104; Katherin Ranzoni, 830 Stetson Avenue, Kent, WA 98031; Heinz Strakeljohn, 13228 SE 231st St., Kent, WA 98042 The following people spoke in OPPOSITION to medical cannabis collective gardens in Kent supporting the ordinance to ban collective gardens: Randy Beaulien, 710 Marion St, Kent, WA 98030; Derek Franklin, Washington Association for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention (WASAVP) supported a continued moratorium. Seeing no further speakers, Councilmember Ranniger Moved and Councilmember Boyce Seconded a Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Motion PASSED 3-0. Councilmember Boyce Moved and Councilmember Ranniger Seconded a Motion to recommend adoption of the medical cannabis collective garden ordinance and to forward on to City Council. Motion PASSED 2-1 with Perry Opposed. Councilmember Perry announced that this issue will be heard before the full Council on June 5th Adiournment Committee Chair Perry adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Pamela Mottram, Secretary Economic & Community Development Committee PIAPlanningAECDC\2012\Mlnutes\051412_Mln.doc ECDC Minutes May 14,2012 Page 3 of --00,0"�. �✓ KENT CITY OF KENT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 8, 2012 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Les Thomas, Dana Ralph, and Bill Boyce, Chair • The meeting was called to order by Chair Boyce at 4:33 PM. • Chair Boyce called for changes to the agenda. L. Thomas had one item. L. Thomas made a motion to table agenda item #6 indefinitely. The motion was seconded by D. Ralph and passed 2-1. 1. Approval of Minutes D. Ralph moved to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2012 meeting. The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 3-0. 2. Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant amendment — ACCEPT and AMEND the budget. Chief of Police Ken Thomas explained the amendment provided an additional $5,000 to an existing Target Zero Teams grant, "Home Safe Bar" operation. D. Ralph moved to recommend the Kent Police Department accept the additional funds in the amount of $5,000 from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and amend the budget. The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 3-0. 3. Police Department Updates — INFO ONLY Chief of Police Ken Thomas shared information on an officer-involved shooting which occurred a few weeks ago. Federal Way Police Department investigated the shooting and as standard procedure, has submitted their documents to the King County Prosecutor's Office for review. Chief also stated that the Department's Deadly Force Review Board will review the case within 30 days. The board's review will cover the Department's policy and lessons learned will be shared in future officer training. Chief Thomas attended the King County Prosecutor's Office 2012 Recognition Awards ceremony which was held last week. At that ceremony, Kent Police Sergeant Phil Johnson received the award for "Outstanding King County Prosecutor's Office Partner 2012". Chief Thomas stated that three new police officers will be sworn in at the May 151h council meeting. Kent Police Department's Volunteers in Police Service members will be recognized for their service to the Department and the City of Kent. As a group, they provide thousands of hours of assistance in several different programs. Chief Thomas announced the next Police Community Meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 301h, from 6:30 to 8 PM in the multipurpose room at Panther Lake Elementary School, 10200 SE 2161h Street, Kent. Residents are encouraged to attend to hear about current events and crime fighting strategies. 4. 2014 Medic One Levy Process — INFO ONLY Fire Chief Jim Schneider, Kent Fire RFA, provided information about the upcoming levy process for the 2014-2020 Medic One Levy. He explained it's a regional, tiered system of First Responders (fire fighters), Basic Life Support (medics) and Advanced Life Support (King County Medic One). Chief Schneider stated the current levy will expire on December 31, 2013, and is a property tax in the amount of thirty cents (30�) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) assessed value. Since this is an existing levy, the recertification percentage needed is 50% voter approval. Chief Schneider stated a resolution will be presented to council in June or July, well before the election process in August 2013. S. King County Survival Rates Chief Schneider distributed a letter from King County Emergency Medical Services Division regarding the survival rate for witnessed cases of ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 2011. This is the highest rate ever achieved in King County and along with Seattle, the highest rate in the world. Added Item: Point of Order Deputy City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick addressed the motion made regarding agenda item #6. The motion to "table"the item implies it will be discussed at a later time. He clarified with L. Thomas that the intent was to remove the item from the agenda and not have the item back on the agenda without a majority vote from this committee. Referring to "Roberts Rules of Order", Pat stated that L. Thomas should have stated that he moved to vote to remove agenda item #6 from the agenda. Committee members agreed with Pat's clarification of the intent of the motion. Since the effect was clear to everyone, Pat stated that no further action was needed. The meeting adjourned at 4:57 PM. Jo Thompson, Public Safety Committee Secretary Public Safety Committee Minutes 2 April 10, 2012 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, May 21, 2012 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair, Elizabeth Albertson, and Committee members, Dana Ralph and Dennis Higgins, were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m. Item 1 — Approval of Meeting Minutes Dated May 7, 2012: Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of May 7, 2012. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and PASSED 3-0. Item 2 — Warning Sign Installation Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF): Transportation Engineering Manager, Steve Mullen noted that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway conducted an assessment of rail crossings in Kent. The assessments evaluated the effect of street back-ups due to nearby signals. BNSF determined that cars backing up onto tracks are a potential problem and they have offered to partner with the City to install "Do Not Stop on Tracks" signs. BNSF would provide solar-powered, LED signs that the City would install and maintain. Sign replacement would become the City's long-term responsibility, including related costs. This enhancement would remind drivers that it is illegal to stop on railroad tracks. These signs would be installed at each of the eight crossings. Councilmembers asked about the cost of installing and maintaining the signs. Mullen stated it would come out of the Street Maintenance budget and that the City's estimated cost to install the signs is somewhere between $5,000-6,000; estimated annual maintenance costs roughly $1,000. Ralph MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Warning Sign Installation Agreement with BNSF Railway, for the installation and maintenance of LED-enhanced "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" signs, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0. Item 3 —Contract/RH2 Engineering, Inc. — Linda Heights Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Replacement: Design Engineer, Ken Langholz noted that the City's Linda Heights Sanitary Sewer Pump Station is located in Linda Heights Park on the west hill, at S. 248th Street, just east of I-5. RH2 Engineering, Inc. was selected to provide mechanical, structural, hydraulic and electrical engineering services to support the City's in-house civil engineering team. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, May 21, 2012 The station serves a developed residential area located between Military Road and I-5 and between S. 241't and S. 252"d Streets. The station was initially constructed in 1957, upgraded in 1976 and now needs to be replaced. It is currently under-sized and cannot be replaced with a gravity line due its location. Individual pump station replacements occur about every 30-50 years, due to life-cycle needs. Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering design services for the Linda Heights Sanitary Sewer Pump Station replacement, in an amount not to exceed $138,600, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and passed 3-0. Item 4 - Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Senior Transportation Planner, Cathy Mooney, stated that the Draft 2013-2018 Six- Year TIP represents the City's proposed transportation improvement program for the next six years and is a significant planning tool not only for the City but for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). It includes planning studies, street, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic signal, and transit improvements as well as street maintenance and preservation projects. Mooney said that including these projects in the Six-Year TIP allows the City to begin looking for funding partners and apply for grants. This year, all State Grant Agencies are requiring that every submitted project must be included in a city's adopted Six- Year Transportation Improvement Program. This Six-Year TIP reflects the eight projects for which the City has already applied for grants and includes projects for which the City plans to apply for grants later this year. Higgins noted that the Six-Year TIP was evaluated by a Citizens Transportation Committee and that it is understood that this document is a planning document. The Citizens Transportation Committee was set up as a standing committee and should be allowed to review the proposed changes. He requested that the Draft 2013-2018 Six- Year TIP be forwarded to both the Citizen's Transportation Committee and to the newly formed Transportation Advisory Committee. Albertson stated she can support a one meeting delay. Higgins MOVED to table the Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program until the next Public Works Committee meeting on Monday, June 4, 2012. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and passed 3-0. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, May 21, 2012 Item 5 —Information Only/Special Recvclina Event for Residents on June 2. 2012: Conservation Specialist, Gina Hungerford, noted that the City of Kent will host a Special Recycling Event for Residents on June 2nd at the Phoenix Academy Parking lot at 11000 SE 264th from 9:00 until 3:00. King County Residents can bring items not easily recycled at the curb, including: • Appliances • Bulky yard debris • Concrete • Rock and brick-as well as sand from sandbags • Up to three file boxes of material to shred • Limited electronics • Alkaline Batteries and • Mattresses at no charge — one time only A flyer with a complete list of items accepted at the event will be in the mail mid-May. Only Kent residents may purchase a Composter or Rain barrel at this event, while supplies last, ID required. For more information, visit www.KentRecycles.com . This event is paid for by grants from King County's Solid Waste Division and Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, and Washington State Department of Ecology grants. No Motion Required/Information Only Item 6 — Information Only/Reaional Water Supply System (RWSS) Water Storaae and Green River Temperatures: Environmental Engineering Manager, Mike Mactutis and Interim Water Superintendent, Sean Bauer presented an informative PowerPoint presentation. Bauer explained that Partners in the Tacoma Regional Water Supply System (RWSS) are asked annually to contribute a portion of their stored water behind the Howard Hansen Dam to the environmental resource agencies for the Green River. Mactutis talked about the water temperatures in the Green River, examples of temperatures were given at the Riverbend Golf Course and other parts of the river and how the temperature affects salmon. No Motion Required/Information Only The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Cheryl Viseth Council Committee Recorder EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION