HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 08/20/2012AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 2012
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.PROCLAMATION
a. Ready in Renton Month ‐ September 2012
4.SPECIAL PRESENTATION
a. Return to Renton Benefit Car Show
5.PUBLIC HEARING
a. 2013/2014 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Recommendations
6.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
7.AUDIENCE COMMENT
(Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The
comment period will be limited to one‐half hour. The second comment period later on in the
agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to
the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for any ballot
measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including
the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED.
8.CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of 8/13/2012 Council meeting minutes. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106; Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Rehabilitation Project; engineer's estimate $401,322.60;
and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Insituform
Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $247,327.03. Council concur.
c. Community and Economic Development Department recommends updating Fire, Parks, and
Transportation Impact Fees with increases to be phased in over three years starting in 2014.
Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 9/10/2012.
d. Community Services Department recommends approval of a golf course fee waiver in the
amount of $11,600 for the Renton, Hazen, Lindbergh, and Liberty High Schools’ 2012 golf
season. Council concur.
e. Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source contract in the amount of
$1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. to provide all system componets for an
Automated Meter Reading system, including hardware, software, training of City staff, project
Page 1 of 424
management, and consulting services. Council concur.
f. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project Construction Agreement in
the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound Energy to provide underground utility conversions as
part of the NE 3rd/4th Corridor Improvements, Phase 1 project. Refer to Transportation
(Aviation) Committee.
g. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a new 40‐year airport ground
lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the business to secure financing for renovations of existing
buildings. The new lease will result in annual revenue of $50,911.48. Refer to Transportation
(Aviation) Committee.
h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐
11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the amount of $101,317.19, for provision of construction support for
the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. N. Widening) project, and
extending the contract to 3/31/2012. Council concur.
i. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001,
with The Boeing Company, related to a minor property swap located in the southeast corner of
the Airport. The purpose of the swap is to improve the utility of Boeing's existing leased area
in that portion of the Airport. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
j. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $712,910
with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform architectural and engineering services for the Renton
Aerospace Training Center project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
9.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held
by the Chair if further review is necessary.
a. Finance Committee: Utility Bill Adjustment Request from River's Edge Condominiums;
Maintenance Shops Storage Bays Conversion; Vouchers
10.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Ordinances for second and final reading:
a. Extending the waiver of certain development and mitigation fees for owner‐occupied &
rental housing incentive programs (1st reading 8/13/2012)
b. Extending the Multi‐Family Property Tax Exemption program (1st reading 8/13/2012)
11.NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425‐430‐6512 for recorded information.)
12.AUDIENCE COMMENT
Page 2 of 424
13.ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
August 20, 2012
Monday, 5:30 p.m.
Mobile Food Vendors; 2013/2014 Human Services General Fund Funding Recommendations;
2013/2014 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Recommendations
• Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk •
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST:
Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM
Page 3 of 424
3a
.
‐
R
e
a
d
y
i
n
R
e
n
t
o
n
M
o
n
t
h
‐ S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
4
2
4
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Bid Opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG-12-106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake
Washington Blvd. Pipe Rehabilitation Project
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Staff Recommendation
Bid Tab (two bids)
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk ext. 6502
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 247,327.03 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $800,000 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Engineer's Estimate: $401,322.60
In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three
criteria: There was more than one bid, there were no irregularities with the low bid, and the low bid
was within total project budget. Therefore, staff recommends accepting the low bid from Insituform
Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $247,327.03.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the low bid by Insituform Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $247,327.03.
8b. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Page 5 of 424
8b. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Page 6 of 424
8b. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Page 7 of 424
8b. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Page 8 of 424
8b. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 8/14/2012 for CAG‐12‐106;
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2012 & Lake Washington Blvd. Pipe Page 9 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Impact Fees Update
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Rate Study
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Chip Vincent, x6588
Recommended Action:
Refer to Committee of the Whole and set Public
Hearing for September 10, 2012
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Impact fees are an important financial tool that helps the City keep its infrastructure in pace with new
development, while not compounding deficiencies and reducing the City’s overall levels of service.
They can only be expended for physical improvements (fire stations and trucks, park land and
improvements, and streets and sidewalks), not administrative, operating, or maintenance costs.
Renton’s current impact fee structure has been in place since 1994, but the rates have not been
adjusted despite the dramatic change that has occurred within the City. The Administration is
recommending that the fees be updated. The proposed rates balance the City’s commitment to
economic development and the need to ensure city infrastructure does not significantly erode. The
Administration is also recommending phasing in the fees, over three years with no increase until 2014,
in order to provide both a smooth transition to the new fee amounts and predictability to the
development community regarding what fees will be charged and when.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Set September 10, 2012 for a public hearing to consider updates to Fire, Parks, and Transportation
Impact Fees with increases to be phased in over 3 years starting in 2014.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 10 of 424
RATE STUDY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS,
and
FIRE PROTECTION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
August 26, 2011
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 11 of 424
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 12 of 424
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................5
2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................7
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................................15
4. PARK IMPACT FEES ...........................................................................................................................................30
5. FIRE IMPACT FEES .............................................................................................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES PER DWELLING UNIT .......................................................................................................5
TABLE 2: STREET PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES ............................................................................................16
TABLE 3: COST OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES .................................................................................................................19
TABLE 4: COST OF FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY .........................................................................................................21
TABLE 5: TOTAL PROJECT COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES......................................................................................22
TABLE 6: GROWTH TRIPS (P.M. PEAK HOUR) ON THE STREET NETWORK .....................................................................26
TABLE 7: COST PER GROWTH TRIP ..............................................................................................................................26
TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................28
TABLE 9: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAPITAL VALUE PER PERSON ................................................................................31
TABLE 10: VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED FOR GROWTH.................................................33
TABLE 11: INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR GROWTH ........................................34
TABLE 12: INVESTMENT IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO BE PAID BY GROWTH .....................................36
TABLE 13: GROWTH COST PER PERSON .........................................................................................................................36
TABLE 14: COST PER DWELLING UNIT ..........................................................................................................................37
TABLE 15: PARK IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT ......................................................................................................39
TABLE 16: FIRE PROTECTION APPARATUS INVENTORY ................................................................................................41
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 13 of 424
TABLE 17: FIRE AND BLS BUILDING INVENTORY ........................................................................................................42
TABLE 18: ANNUALIZED APPARATUS COST .................................................................................................................43
TABLE 19: APPARATUS COST PER RESPONSE ...............................................................................................................44
TABLE 20: ANNUAL FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS ............................................................................................................45
TABLE 21: FIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ...................................................................................45
TABLE 22: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER FIRE INCIDENT ............................................................................................46
TABLE 23: ANNUALIZED STATION COST PER SQUARE FOOT........................................................................................47
TABLE 24: STATION COST PER FIRE AND BLS INCIDENT .............................................................................................47
TABLE 25: FIRE INCIDENTS............................................................................................................................................49
TABLE 26: FIRE INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ....................................................................................................49
TABLE 27: TRAFFIC RELATED FIRE INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES)..............................................................50
TABLE 28: TOTAL ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................51
TABLE 29: ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE .....................................................................................................52
TABLE 30: ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...........................................53
TABLE 31: LADDER COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..........................................54
TABLE 32: AID VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................55
TABLE 33: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES.56
TABLE 34: BRUSH TRUCK COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ................................57
TABLE 35: STAFF VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...............................58
TABLE 36: OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ....59
TABLE 37: FIRE STATION COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES .................................60
TABLE 38: EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ...........60
TABLE 39: TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..............................61
TABLE 40: BLS INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ....................................................................................62
TABLE 41: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER BLS INCIDENT .............................................................................................63
TABLE 42: BLS INCIDENTS ............................................................................................................................................64
TABLE 43: BLS INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ....................................................................................................64
TABLE 44: TRAFFIC RELATED BLS INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES)..............................................................65
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 14 of 424
TABLE 45: TOTAL ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................66
TABLE 46: ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE .....................................................................................................67
TABLE 47: ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...........................................68
TABLE 48: LADDER COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..........................................69
TABLE 49: AID VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................70
TABLE 50: STAFF VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...............................71
TABLE 51: OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ....72
TABLE 52: FIRE STATION COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................73
TABLE 53: EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS FOR A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE .............................................................................................................................................73
TABLE 54: TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..............................74
TABLE 55: TOTAL COST OF RESPONSE O FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE CATEGORY....................................75
TABLE 56: FIRE IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE ................................................................................................................77
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 15 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 5
Company
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of
Renton, Washington for three types of public facilities authorized by RCW1
82.02.090(7). The following list provides the statutory name of each type of
public facility and in parentheses the short name used in this study for each type
of impact fee:
• public streets and roads (transportation)
• publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities (parks)
• fire protection facilities (fire)
Summary of Impact Fee Rates
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2. Impact fee rates for
new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use.
The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for several frequently used
land use categories. Rates for other non-residential development are presented
in the sections of this study for each type of public facility.
Table 1: Impact Fee Rates per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Development
(2)
Unit
(3)
Transportation
(4)
Parks
(5)
Fire
(6)
Total
Single-Family dwelling unit $ 8,579.24 $ 2,740.07 $ 718.56 $ 12,037.87
Multi-Family dwelling unit 5,592.71 2,224.29 718.56 8,535.56
Office sq. ft. 14.82 none 0.21 15.03
Retail (shopping) sq. ft. 9.66 none 0.88 10.54
Industrial sq. ft. 10.72 none 0.12 10.84
Restaurant sq. ft. 33.65 none 2.67 36.32
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local
governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve
new development and the people who occupy or use the new development.
Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to
describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners
1 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington.
2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or “broad
public purposes”, but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact
fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 16 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 6
Company
or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue
to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public
policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it
requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such
facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to
serve new development.
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms
of developer contributions or exactions, such as: mitigation or voluntary
payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C);
system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW
35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts);
local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or
land donations or fees in lieu of land.
Organization of the Study
This impact fee rate study contains five chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used
land use categories, and other introductory materials.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact
fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement.
• Chapters 3 – 5 present impact fees for transportation (Chapter 3), parks
(Chapter 4), and fire (Chapter 5). Each chapter provides the
methodology that is used to develop the fees, presents the formulas,
variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and documents the
calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the
requirements of Washington state law.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 17 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 7
Company
2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State
of Washington, and describes how the City of Renton’s impact fees comply with
the statutory requirements.
Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st
Ex. Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management
Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three
aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to
charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project
improvements" (which are "on-site" and provide service for a particular
development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their
proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the
predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost,
time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case-by-case
basis.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to
review the exact language of the statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public
transportation and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation
facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that
are not part of a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside
the development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development). RCW
82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 18 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 8
Company
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably
related to, and which will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and
(c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or
more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and
local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The
impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating
the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW
82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to
particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are
required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees
for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all
such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee
accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW
82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund
of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the
impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement,
or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no
impacts). RCW 82.02.080
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 19 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 9
Company
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan
(CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of
existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of
1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and
additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2)
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and
for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to
the proportionate share limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies,
expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare
annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in Chapters 3 - 5 of
this study that present the calculation of each type of impact fee. Some of the
statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below.
Types of Public Facilities
This study contains impact fees for three of the four types of public facilities
authorized by statute: transportation, parks and fire. This study does not contain
impact fees for schools.
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees.
The City of Renton is legally and financially responsible for the transportation,
parks and fire facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may
a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge
impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities
are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7). Thus, a city
or county may charge impact fees for transportation, and enter into an
agreement with the State of Washington for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of transportation impact fees for state roads. A city may only charge
and use impact fees on State roads if it has an agreement with the State, and
the City CFP includes the state road projects.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 20 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 10
Company
Types of Improvements
The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are
described in Chapters 3 – 5 for each type of impact fee. No project
improvements are included in this study.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system
improvements” (which are typically outside the development), and "designed
to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in
RCW 82.02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the
development), and "designed to provide service for a development project,
and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users
of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(6). The capital improvements costs
contained in Chapters 3 – 5 comply with these requirements.
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact
fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public
facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include design studies,
engineering, land surveys, land and right of way acquisition, engineering,
permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable
mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements.
Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact
fees: 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably
related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the
designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(6)
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can
be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is
"reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees
cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
deficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate
share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but
which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the
amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1)
by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new
development when calculating impact fees.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 21 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 11
Company
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should
be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be
added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship
to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees,
where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the
impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for
past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are
earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are
needed to serve new growth). Each impact fee calculated in this
study includes an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that
is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion
of growth’s proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is in response
to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the
developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the
projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a
condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a local
government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining
credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality
and design of donated street, park or fire public facilities can be
required to be acceptable to the local government.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities,
including personal use and use by others in the family or business
enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide
goods or services to the fee-paying property or are customers or visitors at
the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity
(presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by
the following techniques:
• Impact fees are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit from)
new public facilities. The City of Renton provides its infrastructure to all
kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been
calculated for all types of property with one exception: park impact
fees are not calculated for non-residential property because the
dominant stream of benefits redounds to the occupants and owners of
dwelling units and there is insufficient data to document the
proportionate share of parks and recreational facilities reasonably
needed by non-residential development.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 22 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 12
Company
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., different impact values for different
types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different trip generation rates for
each type of land use, Chapter 4 uses different persons per dwelling
unit, and Chapter 5 uses different emergency response rates for each
type of land use.
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee
schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use
restrictions).
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of Renton’s impact fee ordinance comply with the
requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the
development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee
revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities
ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which
has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the
portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as
described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended
or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to
benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City.
4. Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within
service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the
fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless
such “zones” are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee
and the development. Because of the compact size of the City of Renton
and the accessibility of its transportation, parks and fire systems to all
property within the City, Renton’s transportation, parks and fire systems
serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single
service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Renton.
Exemptions
The City’s impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions.
Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because
of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from
other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make
up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as
a result of the exemption.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 23 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 13
Company
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact
fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in
this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the
City of Renton. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee
payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can
obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if
the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these
provisions are addressed in the City’s impact fee ordinance, and none of them
affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study.
Capital Facilities Plan
There are references in RCW to the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) as the basis for
projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt
documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et.
seq. pertaining to a “capital facilities plan”. The Transportation Element, Park
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the “capital facilities
plan” (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. In addition, the City’s
Capital Investment Program (CIP) section of the City’s Budget provides up-to-
date and detailed information about the projects in the CFP. The City also
produces an annual update of the multi-year Transportation Improvements Plan
(TIP) All references to a CFP in this study are references to the Comprehensive
Plan elements, City CIP and TIP documents listed above.
The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new
development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new
development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of
public facility. Chapters 3 – 5 provide this analysis for each type of public facility.
New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused
capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or
obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a
written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the
fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact
fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government,
and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These
requirements are addressed by Renton’s impact fee ordinance, and are not
factors in the impact fee calculations in this study.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 24 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 14
Company
Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees in Renton, Washington was provided by the
City of Renton, unless a different source is specifically cited.
Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In
some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that
would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason
for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed
to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the
tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal
increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor
differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 25 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 15
Company
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for transportation begin with the list of projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of City's Comprehensive Plan and
the City’s CIP and TIP (which are the “CFP”, as noted in Chapter 2). The projects
in these elements are analyzed to identify capacity costs attributable to new
development. The costs are apportioned between existing deficiencies (if any)
and growth capacity. The capacity costs for growth are further apportioned to
eliminate the cost of future reserve capacity. The costs are adjusted to reflect
other sources of revenue that reduce the cost of the facility that is to be paid by
impact fees. The eligible costs are divided by the growth in trips to calculate the
cost per growth trip. The cost per growth trip is applied to the unique trip
generation rates for each type of land use. The amount of the fee is
determined by charging each fee-paying development for cost of the number
of growth trips that it generates.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of transportation impact fees.
Formula T-1: Transportation Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
The City has many projects in its transportation plan. Only those that add
capacity to the streets in order to maintain the City’s adopted standard for level
of service are eligible for impact fees.
T-1. All Capital
Projects -
Non-Capacity
Projects or Not
Needed for Level
of Service
= Projects Eligible for
Impact Fees
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) street capacity projects, and
needed for level of service.
Variable (A): Street Capacity Projects
RCW 82.02.050 (4)(c) requires identification of public facility improvements
needed to serve new development. Projects in the Transportation Element and
Capital Facilities Plan Element, the CIP and TIP, and previously constructed
projects are not eligible for impact fees if they do not add capacity to the City's
current street system.
In addition, capacity projects that are not needed for level of service are also
not eligible for impact fees. For each capacity project, the future traffic volume
(the amount of traffic on the street) was compared to the current capacity of
the street (the amount of traffic the street is designed to carry without
exceeding the adopted level of service standard). If the future volume is
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 26 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 16
Company
greater than the current capacity, the project is needed in order to increase the
capacity to serve the future volume, and the project is included in the impact
fee. If, however the future volume is less than the current capacity, the City
does not need the project for level of service, therefore the project is not eligible
for impact fees3.
A similar analysis was conducted of level of service for previously constructed
projects eligible for “reimbursement” impact fees. RCW 82.02.050 (4)(b) requires
this analysis of the additional demands placed on existing public facilities by
new development.
Table 2 lists the transportation projects that are eligible for impact fees. projects
1 – 13 are new projects that will be built in the future. Projects A – C were
completed by the City and they have unused capacity that is available to serve
new development (“reimbursement projects”)4.
Table 2: Street Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE NE 4th St SE 143rd St
Widen existing 2-lane
roadway to provide 4 lanes
with left turn lanes at
intersection and two-way left
turn lane where needed.
2 Benson Road South 26th St South 31st St Arterial widening
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR 515) intersection
Widen Carr Road between
105th Ave SE and 109th Ave
SE to provide an additional
EB lane; at the 108th Ave SE
intersection, widen the Carr
Road EB approach to provide
2left turn lanes and 3 thru
lanes; at the 108th Ave SE
intersection, widen the WB
approach to provide 2 left
turn lanes, a separate right
turn lane, 2 WB lanes, and 3
EB lanes; widen the 108th SE
approach at the Carr Road
3 The City may have other reasons to build the project, and the project may provide additional
capacity, but the project cannot be included in the impact fee if it is not needed for level of
service.
4 RCW 82.02.060(7) authorizes the City to impose impact fees for system improvement costs
previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served
by the previously constructed improvements. RCW 82.02.060 (1)(d) authorizes the cost of
existing public facilities improvements in the calculation of impact fees.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 27 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 17
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
intersection to provide a
separate right turn lane;
widen Benson Drive (SR515)
between Carr Road
intersection and 108th Way
SE (old Benson Road) to
provide a separate NB right
turn lane
4 Carr Road Central West of Talbot
Road 108th Pl
Add turn lanes at Talbot
intersection; Widen to add EB
lane between Talbot and
Benson
5 Carr Road West Lind Avenue West of Talbot
Road
New SR 167 SB Off-ramp;
new collector-distributor road;
Add EB lane between Lind
and Talbot
6 Grady Way Talbot Road Rainier Ave Arterial improvements
7 Lake Washington Blvd Park Ave N Coulon Park
Entrance
Widen existing roadway to
provide dual SB left turn
lanes on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Logan Ave/
Garden Ave/ N Park Dr
intersection and a NB left turn
lane on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Coulon Park
Entrance intersection; install
new traffic signal at Lk WA
Blvd/ Coulon Park Entrance
intersection
8 Lind Ave SW SW 16th St SW 43rd St
Widen existing roadway to
provide center two-way left
turn lane
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave N/
Lk Washington Blvd Intersection
Widen roadway to provide an
additional EB left turn lane on
EB Logan approach at Lk WA
Blvd intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) Park entrance East City Limits
Widen existing 4-lane
roadway to provide additional
lane in each direction; traffic
operations improvements at
intersections
11 Park Ave N Extension Logan Ave N 1200 ft north of
Logan
New 4-lane roadways with
center left turn lane where
needed
12 South 7th Street Rainier Ave S S Grady Way EB lane Shattuck-Talbot,
signal @ Shattuck & Talbot
13
SW 27th Street/Strander
Boulevard Connection
Oakdale West Valley Hwy New 5 lane arterial
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 28 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 18
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvall Sunset North City limits Reconstructed to 5 lane road
B Logan 6th Garden New 3-5 lane road and 2
signals
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) I-405 Park entrance Added one lane in each
direction
Formula T-2: Eligible Cost of Projects Needed for Level of Service
A project that is needed for level of service is eligible for impact fees, but some
of the project’s costs may not be eligible for impact fees. Ineligible costs include
the cost of existing deficiencies, and the value of extra (“reserve”) capacity
beyond that needed by new development.
T-2.
Cost of Projects
Eligible for
Impact Fees
-
Costs Not
Eligible for
Impact Fee
= Growth’s Share of
Eligible Cost
There are two new variables that require explanation: (B) costs of projects, and
(C) costs not eligible for impact fee.
Variable (B): Costs of Projects
The costs in this study are the same costs of the projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element and the CIP and TIP. The costs of
street projects used in this study include the full cost of the project, including
engineering, right of way, and construction costs. The cost of street projects
does not include any costs for interest or other financing. If the City decides in
the future to borrow money for transportation, the carrying costs for financing
can be added to the costs in this study, and the impact fee can be
recalculated to include such costs.
Variable (C): Costs Not Eligible for Impact Fee
Costs that are eligible for impact fees must meet the statutory requirement to be
growth’s proportionate share of projects that are reasonably needed to serve
growth. Two aspects of a project that do not meet this requirement include
existing deficiencies, and reserve capacity in excess of that needed by growth,
These elements will be analyzed in a series of tables below.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 29 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 19
Company
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
RCW 82.02.050 (4)(a) requires an analysis of deficiencies in public facilities
serving existing development. Table 3 contains the analysis of deficiencies for
future and reimbursement projects (projects previously constructed). Existing
deficiencies are determined by comparing existing traffic volume to existing
capacity of each street that is planned for improvement. If current traffic
exceeds current capacity, the “excess” traffic is the number of deficient trips.
The deficient trips are divided by the amount of new capacity to be added in
order to calculate the percent of the project that will make up for existing
deficiencies. The deficiency percentage is multiplied times the project costs to
calculate the portion of the project cost that is attributable to existing
deficiencies. The portion of the total $224.8 million of eligible projects that is for
existing deficiencies equals $3,870,236 (1.7% of the total cost).
Table 3: Cost of Existing Deficiencies
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2008
Capacity
Before
Project
(5)
2008
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Existing
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Increase
in
Capacity
(8)
Existing
(Deficiency)
% of
Increased
Capacity
(9)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 1,400 1,127 274 1,400 0.00% $ 0
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 1,600 1,559 42 1,600 0.00% 0
South 26th St to South
31st St
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR
515) 23,391,000 6,400 5,701 699 800 0.00% 0
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 3,200 2,776 424 1,600 0.00% 0
West of Talbot Road to
108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,200 3,527 (327) 1,200 27.25% 3,187,269
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 3,200 3,324 (124) 800 15.54% 466,250
Talbot Road to Rainier
Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 1,300 1,483 (183) 1,300 14.08% 77,175
Park Ave N to Coulon
Park Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 2,400 1,362 1,039 800 0.00% 0
SW 16th St to SW 43rd
St
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 30 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 20
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2008
Capacity
Before
Project
(5)
2008
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Existing
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Increase
in
Capacity
(8)
Existing
(Deficiency)
% of
Increased
Capacity
(9)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden
Ave N/ 2,683,492 2,800 2,904 (104) 2,000 5.20% 139,542
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR
169) 83,693,292 3,550 2,714 836 1,775 0.00% 0
Park entrance to East
City Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 0 1,300 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 1,760 1,323 437 400 0.00% 0
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Way
13 SW 27th St/Strander
Connection 9,000,000 0 0 0 3,200 0.00% 0
Oakdale to West Valley
Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 1,714 1,673 41 1,829 0.00% 0
Sunset to North City
limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 0 0 3,520 0.00% 0
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley
Hwy) 8,306,708 3,600 3,293 307 1,800 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement
Projects 25,081,073 0
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236
FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY
Capacity in excess of trips generated by growth is considered future reserve
capacity. It may eventually be used by growth that occurs after the planning
horizon of the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element, and it
may be repaid in part by future impact fees, but it is not eligible to be included
in the impact fees calculated in this study. Table 4 presents the analysis of future
reserve capacity for future and reimbursement projects (projects previously
constructed). The amount of future reserve capacity is determined by
comparing the total capacity of the improved street to the forecast of traffic
volume at the end of the planning period. The amount by which future
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 31 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 21
Company
capacity exceeds future traffic volume is the number of future reserve capacity
trips. The future reserve capacity trips are divided by the amount of new
capacity to be added in order to calculate the percent of the project that will
be future reserve capacity. The future reserve capacity percentage is multiplied
times the project costs to calculate the portion of the project cost that is
attributable to future reserve capacity. The portion of the total $224.8 million of
eligible projects that is for future reserve capacity equals $82,428,993 (36.7% of
the total cost).
Table 4: Cost of Future Reserve Capacity
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2030
Capacity
When
Complete
(5)
2030
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Post 2030
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Future
Reserve
% of
Increase
(8)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 2,800 1,728 1,072 76.57% $10,108,960
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 3,200 2,046 1,154 72.13% 3,245,625
South 26th St to South 31st
St
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR
515) 23,391,000 7,200 6,853 347 43.38% 10,145,846
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 4,800 3,596 1,204 75.23% 24,440,828
West of Talbot Road to
108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 4,400 4,476 (76) 0.00% 0
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 4,000 4,787 (787) 0.00% 0
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 2,600 1,885 715 55.00% 301,531
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 3,200 2,516 684 85.55% 2,994,141
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave
N/ 2,683,492 4,800 4,637 163 8.15% 218,705
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) 83,693,292 5,325 4,806 519 29.26% 24,489,129
Park entrance to East City
Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 1,300 2,288 (988) 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 32 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 22
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2030
Capacity
When
Complete
(5)
2030
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Post 2030
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Future
Reserve
% of
Increase
(8)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 2,160 2,100 60 15.05% 1,053,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Wee
13 SW 27th St/Strander
Connection 9,000,000 3,200 3,073 127 3.97% 357,188
Oakdale to West Valley
Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 77,355,451
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 3,543 2,465 1,078 58.93% 4,826,762
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 3,520 3,419 101 2.87% 246,780
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 5,400 6,342 (942) 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement
Projects 25,081,073 5,073,542
Total All Projects 224,783,995 82,428,993
COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
Table 5 begins with the total cost of projects needed for growth. The columns to
the right repeat the costs of existing deficiencies (from Table 3), and future
reserve capacity (from Table 4). These costs are subtracted from the total cost
of each project to calculate the remaining cost of each project that is eligible
for impact fees. The total eligible cost is $138,484,767 which is 61.6% of the
$224.8 million total cost of eligible projects.
Table 5: Total Project Cost Eligible for Impact Fees
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
(5)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
(6)
2008-2030
Project Cost
Eligible for
Impact Fees
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 $ 0 $10,108,960 $ 3,093,040
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 0 3,245,625 1,254,375
South 26th St to South 31st St
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 33 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 23
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
(5)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
(6)
2008-2030
Project Cost
Eligible for
Impact Fees
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR 515) 23,391,000 0 10,145,846 13,245,154
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 0 24,440,828 8,047,672
West of Talbot Road to 108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,187,269 0 8,509,131
Lind Avenue to West of Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 466,250 0 2,533,750
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 77,175 301,531 169,532
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 0 2,994,141 505,859
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave N/ 2,683,492 139,542 218,705 2,325,246
Lk Washington Blvd Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) 83,693,292 0 24,489,129 59,204,163
Park entrance to East City Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 0 1,053,500 5,946,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady Way
13 SW 27th St/Strander Connection 9,000,000 0 357,188 8,642,813
Oakdale to West Valley Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236 77,355,451 118,477,235
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 0 4,826,762 3,363,951
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 246,780 8,336,872
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 0 0 8,306,708
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement Projects 25,081,073 0 5,073,542 20,007,532
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236 82,428,993 138,484,767
Reduction for RCW 82.02.050(2) @ 3%
of eligible cost -4,154,543
Growth’s Share of Eligible Cost 134,330,224
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 34 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 24
Company
The final step in Table 5 is to further reduce the cost that is needed by new
development in order to implement a conservative interpretation of RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that “…the financing for system improvements to
serve new development … cannot rely solely on impact fees.” The statute
provides no further guidance, and “not rely solely” could be anything between
0.1% and 99.9%, thus additional analysis is presented below.
As noted previously, the total cost of all eligible projects is $224.8 million, and
only 1.7% of that is for existing deficiencies. Because the future reserve capacity
equals 36.7% of total costs, the City will be required to pay for those costs, and
may or may not eventually recoup those costs from development that occurs
after the 2030 planning horizon for the transportation improvements. Arguably
the 1.7% and the 36.6% that will be paid by the City provide sufficient
compliance with the requirement to “not rely solely on impact fees.” However,
in the event that the intent of the statute is more narrowly construed to mean
that the City should “not rely solely on impact fees” for the $138,484,767 cost
that is eligible for impact fees, an additional 3% reduction ($4,154,543) is taken
at the end of Table 5, leaving a net total cost of growth’s share of $134,330,224.
This amount will be used as the basis for the remaining calculations of the
transportation impact fee for Renton.
No other reduction is warranted for other revenues that the City may obtain for
transportation capital improvements. Grant revenue is primarily regional in
nature, and will be used by the City for the portion of the eligible $134 million
that is attributable to external traffic that comes from development that does
not pay impact fees to Renton. Any other local revenue would be used first to
pay the $4,154,839 for the 3% reduction, then for the 1.7% for existing
deficiencies, and lastly for the 36.7% for future reserve capacity. In other words,
there are no other revenues that would be subject to the “adjustment”
provisions of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b).
If a developer believes that significant prior payments were made by their
property that meet the criteria of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b), the applicant can submit
supporting information and request a special review to reduce their impact fee
by the amount of such prior payments made by their property and used for the
same system improvements that are the basis of the impact fee (i.e., those listed
in Tables 2 – 5).
Formula T-3: Growth Trips on the Street Network
The growth of trips on Renton’s streets and roads is calculated from data
produced by the City’s traffic model:
T-3.
Future
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
-
Current
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
=
Growth
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 35 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 25
Company
There is one new variable used in formula 3 that requires explanation: (D) p.m.
peak hour trips on the network of streets and roads.
Variable (D): P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Renton’s traffic model can count the total number of trips on all the City’s streets
and roads during the busiest hour (i.e., “p.m. peak hour). Measuring traffic
during the p.m. peak hour is a common practice among Washington cities
because they are concerned about congestion and the level of service during
the time of heaviest traffic volumes.
The City’s traffic model can count p.m. peak hour trips currently on the system.
The model can also use future population and employment data to estimate
the p.m. peak hour trips at future points in time.
The City’s long-range transportation planning horizon is the year 2030, therefore
the “future” p.m. peak hour trips are for the year 2030 (and the City’s
transportation improvement projects are selected to address the increased trips
through 2030).
Table 6 shows a total of 45,880 trips in 2008. In 2030 the total is estimated to be
63,750 trips. The difference between the 2008 and 2030 trips is 17,870 growth
trips. The growth trips will be divided into the cost of growth to calculate the
cost per growth trip.
One other feature of the trip data is noteworthy. Some of the trips begin and or
end outside the City. Renton’s transportation impact fee only applies to
development inside the City, so it will be useful to know how many growth trips
will be paying the impact fee, and how many will not.
Information about “inside” and “outside” trips is available from Renton’s traffic
model. It identifies the starting point (i.e., “origin”) and the ending point (i.e.,
“destination”) of each trip. In the summary of trip ends in Table 6 each trip end
is either inside the City of Renton (i.e., “internal”) or outside the City (i.e.,
“external”).
The trip data is reported in Table 6 for all four combinations: internal – internal
means a trip that starts and ends inside the City. External – external is a trip that
begins and ends outside the City limits without stopping in Renton. These are
also called “through trips”. The trips that have one end in the City and the other
end outside the City are internal-external or external-internal. The column
showing internal growth trips includes all of the internal-internal, one-half of the
internal-external and external-internal, and none of the external-external trips.
The column showing external growth trips counts the opposite end of all trips.
The sum of the internal and the external trips is the total growth trips. This data
will be used outside this study to estimate the costs that will be paid by impact
fees and the cost that will be paid by other sources of revenue. Those estimates
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 36 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 26
Company
are for financial planning purposes, but do not affect the calculation of the
impact fee rates in this study.
Table 6: Growth Trips (p.m. peak hour) on the Street Network
(1)
Origin -
Destination
(2)
2008
Trips
(3)
2030
Trips
(4)
Growth
Trips
(5)
Internal
Growth
Trips
(6)
External
Growth
Trips
internal - internal 6,150 9,200 3,050 3,050 0
internal - external 15,265 21,010 5,745 2,873 2,873
external - internal 12,618 17,815 5,197 2,599 2,599
external - external 11,847 15,725 3,878 0 3,878
Total 45,880 63,750 17,870 8,521 9,349
Formula T-4: Cost per Growth Trip
The cost per growth trip is calculated by dividing growth’s share of eligible costs
of projects needed for growth by the number of growth trips:
T-4. Growth’s Share
of Eligible Cost ÷ Growth’s Trips on
the Street Network = Cost Per
Growth Trip
There are no new variables used in formula 4.
Calculation of Cost per Growth Trip
Table 7 shows the calculation of the cost per growth trip by dividing the $134.3
million of eligible cost of street projects (from Table 5) by the 17,870 growth trips
(from Table 6). The result is the cost per trip of $7,517.08.
Table 7: Cost per Growth Trip
(1)
Item
(2)
Amount
Growth’s Share of Eligible Costs $ 134,330,224
P.M. Peak Hour Growth Trips 17,870
Cost per PM Peak Growth Trip 7,517.08
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 37 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 27
Company
Formula T-5: Impact Fee Rates For Specific Land Uses
The impact fee rate for each category of land use is determined by multiplying
the cost per growth trip times the number of trips generated per unit of
development of each category of land use:
T-5. Cost Per
Growth Trip x
Trip Generation
Rate per Unit of
Development
= Impact Fee Rate Per
Unit of Development
The formula uses different trip generation rates for different types of land uses
(i.e., single family houses, office buildings, etc.). There is one new variable used
in formula 5 that requires explanation: (E) trip generation rates.
Variable (E): Trip Generation Rates.
Trip generation rates measure the impact on the street and road network by
different types of land uses. For example, office buildings average 1.49 p.m.
peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of office, but industrial buildings average
only 0.97 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of industrial space.
This rate study uses the data reported in Trip Generation, compiled and
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report is currently
in its 8th edition. The report is a summary of data from hundreds of surveys of trip
origins and destinations conducted throughout the United States. The data is
reported on several variables (i.e., type of land use, units of development,
number of employees, hour of day, etc.). The data used in this impact fee rate
study is for trips generated during the p.m. peak hour, since that is the same
basis the City uses to analyze the City’s traffic conditions.
Impact fee rates are calculated in this study for many frequently used types of
land use (i.e., dwellings, industrial, offices, retail, restaurants, etc.). Impact fees
can be calculated for other land uses not listed in this rate study by referring to
the data in the ITE report referenced above.
Trip generation data is reported initially as the total number of trips leaving and
arriving at each type of land use. This impact fee rate study makes two
adjustments to trip generation rates reported in ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th edition.
The first adjustment is to reduce the number of trips that are incidental attractors
and generators of trips. For example, if a person leaves work to return home at
the end of the work day, the place of employment is the origin, and the home is
the destination. But if the person stops enroute to run an errand at a store, the
ITE data counts the stop at the store as a new destination (and a new origin
when the person leaves the store to continue to their home). In reality, the work-
to-home trip was going to occur regardless of the incidental stop, therefore the
store should not be charged with an additional trip on the street system. The
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 38 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 28
Company
measurement for this adjustment is the number of "pass-by" trips that stop at the
store instead of "passing by." In Table 8, these trips are eliminated by counting
only the trips that are truly "new" trips (i.e., a person made a special trip to the
store). The adjustment is shown in Table 8 as "Percent New Trips."
The second adjustment is the "Trip Length Factor." Not all trips are the same
length. Longer trips are considered to have a greater impact than shorter trips.
The ITE report's trip generation data is adjusted by a factor that compares the
average trip length of each type of development to the average trip length
factor of 1.0 for all trips. Some land uses have factors greater than 1.0 (i.e.,
industrial trips are factored at 1.47 because their trips are 47% longer than
average) while other land uses have factors less than 1.0 (i.e., 24-hour
convenience markets trips are factored at 0.44 because their trips are only 44%
the length of an average trip). Trip length data is compiled from studies
prepared by a number of local governments and consultants.
Calculation of Impact Fee Rates for Specific Land Uses
Table 8 shows the calculation of impact fee rates for frequently used categories
of land use that are listed in columns 1 and 2. The ITE trip rate in column 3 is
multiplied times the percent new trips in column 4, and the result is multiplied
times the trip length factor in column 5. Column 6 reports the net new trips that
are the result of these calculations. The impact fee rates in column 7 are
calculated by multiplying the net new trips from column 6 times the $7,517.08
cost per growth trip (from Table 7, and repeated in the column heading of
column 7).
Table 8: Transportation Impact Fee Rates Per Unit of Development
(1)
ITE
Code
(2)
ITE Land Use Category
(3)
ITE
Trip
Rate
(4)
%
New
Trips
(5)
Trip
Length
Factor
(6)
Net New Trips Per
Unit of Measure
(7)
Impact Fee Per Unit @
$7,517.08 per Trip
110 Light Industrial 0.97 100% 1.47 1.43 1,000 sq ft 10.72 per sq ft
140 Manufacturing 0.73 100% 1.47 1.07 1,000 sq ft 8.07 per sq ft
151 Mini-warehouse 0.26 100% 1.47 0.38 1,000 sq ft 2.87 per sq ft
210 Single family House 1.01 100% 1.13 1.14 dwelling 8,579.24 per dwelling
220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.20 0.74 dwelling 5,592.71 per dwelling
230 Condominium 0.52 100% 1.15 0.60 dwelling 4,495.21 per dwelling
240 Mobile Home 0.59 100% 1.09 0.64 dwelling 4,834.23 per dwelling
251 Senior Housing - Attached 0.16 100% 0.93 0.15 dwelling 1,118.54 per dwelling
310 Hotel 0.59 100% 1.28 0.76 room 5,676.90 per room
320 Motel 0.47 100% 1.28 0.60 room 4,522.28 per room
420 Marina 0.19 100% 0.97 0.18 berth 1,385.40 per boat berth
444 Movie Theater 3.80 85% 0.73 2.36 1,000 sq ft 17.72 per sq ft
492 Health/Fitness Club 3.53 75% 1.00 2.65 1,000 sq ft 19.90 per sq ft
530 High School 0.97 80% 1.00 0.78 1,000 sq ft 5.83 per sq ft
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 39 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 29
Company
(1)
ITE
Code
(2)
ITE Land Use Category
(3)
ITE
Trip
Rate
(4)
%
New
Trips
(5)
Trip
Length
Factor
(6)
Net New Trips Per
Unit of Measure
(7)
Impact Fee Per Unit @
$7,517.08 per Trip
560 Church 0.55 100% 1.20 0.66 1,000 sq ft 4.96 per sq ft
610 Hospital 1.14 80% 1.28 1.17 1,000 sq ft 8.78 per sq ft
620 Nursing home 0.22 100% 0.87 0.19 bed 1,438.77 per bed
710 General Office 1.49 90% 1.47 1.97 1,000 sq ft 14.82 per sq ft
720 Medical office 3.46 75% 1.40 3.63 1,000 sq ft 27.31 per sq ft
820 Shopping Center 3.73 65% 0.53 1.28 1,000 sq ft 9.66 per sq ft
932 Restaurant: sit-down 11.15 55% 0.73 4.48 1,000 sq ft 33.65 per sq ft
933 Fast food, no drive-up 26.15 50% 0.67 8.76 1,000 sq ft 65.85 per sq ft
934 Fast food, w/ drive-up 33.84 51% 0.62 10.70 1,000 sq ft 80.43 per sq ft
944 Gas station 13.87 40% 0.56 3.11 pump 23,354.67 per pump
945 Gas station w/convenience 13.38 45% 0.53 3.19 pump 24,967.98 per pump
850 Supermarket 10.50 65% 0.67 4.57 1,000 sq ft 34.37 per sq ft
851 Convenience market-24 hr 52.41 45% 0.44 10.38 1,000 sq ft 78.01 per sq ft
912 Drive-in Bank 25.82 55% 0.47 6.67 1,000 sq ft 50.17 per sq ft
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 40 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 30
Company
4. PARK IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities begin with an
inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current
investment per person. The current investment per person is multiplied times the
future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide
growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current
population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific revenues
to determine the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net
investment by the population growth results in the investment per person that
can be charged as impact fees. A final adjustment reduces the impact fee
amount to match the investments listed in the City’s adopted Capital
Investment Program. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging
each fee-paying development for impact fee cost per dwelling multiplied times
the number of dwelling units in the development.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees.
Formula P-1: Park and Recreation Capital Value Per Person
The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the
asset inventory by the current population.
P-1.
Value of Parks &
Recreation
Inventory
÷ Current
Population = Capital Value
Per Person
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks and recreation
inventory
Variable (A): Value of Parks and Recreation Inventory
The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities
is calculated by determining the value of park land, amenities and buildings
The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City’s park and
recreation system.
The values in this study come from a variety of sources, depending on the type
of the park or recreation facility. The land values are from King County’s land
assessment data base. Most of the valuations of the park amenities are from the
City’s cost records. Values of a few amenities are based on information from
vendors or costs in other Washington cities. The values of the following amenities
were determined by special studies: Coulon Park, Henry Moses Aquatic Center,
grandstand and bridge, and all park system buildings. The value of amenities
does not include land because the facilities are customarily located at a park.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 41 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 31
Company
The costs of new parks and recreation facilities in this rate study do not include
any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to “front fund” the
costs that will be paid by impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be
added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such
costs.
Table 9 lists the inventory of park land and amenities that make up the existing
City of Renton park system. Each item is listed in column 1, the unit of
measurement in column 2, the inventory in column 3, and the average cost per
unit in column 4. The value of the park land or amenity is shown in Column 5.
The total value for the current existing inventory of park land and amenities is
$204,664,604. That value is divided by the current population of 84,928 to
calculate the capital value of $2,409.62 per person.
Table 9: Asset Inventory and Capital Value per Person
(1)
Type of Park or Facility
(2)
Unit
(3)
Inventory
(4)
Average Cost
Per Unit
(5)
Capital Value
Land Value
Neighborhood Park acre 141.53 129,783 $18,368,188
Community Park acre 129.54 229,463 29,724,637
Regional Park (Coulon Memorial) acre 27.69 1,089,094 30,157,013
Open Space Park acre 612.55 71,728 43,936,986
Special Use Park acre 2.75 903,586 2,484,862
Land Value Subtotal $124,671,686
Park Amenity
Ballfield field 9 310,000 $2,790,000
Ballfield, Complete & Lighted field 4 710,000 2,840,000
Basketball Court, Half court 3 125,000 375,000
Basketball Court, Full court 7 190,000 1,330,000
Basketball Court, Lighted court 3 240,000 720,000
Boardwalk Trail linear feet 1,300 700 910,000
Boathouse Pier pier 1 1,538,030 1,538,030
Boathouse Pier Wood Floats float 2 154,750 309,500
Kennydale Beach Pier, Bulkhead, Logboom pier 1 548,930 548,930
Land - Passive / Landscaped acre 75 196,020 14,701,500
Multi-Purpose Field acre 7 196,020 1,372,140
Multi-Purpose Trail, 12' wide, Paved mile 3.5 443,520 1,552,320
Park Bridge bridge 4 5,993,575
Parking Lot acre 18.5 305,000 5,642,500
Pedestrian Trail, 8' wide, AC Paved mile 3 295,680 887,040
Pedestrian Trail, 8' wide, Brick Paved linear feet 1,735 120 208,200
Picnic Shelter shelter 7 55,000 385,000
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 42 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 32
Company
(1)
Type of Park or Facility
(2)
Unit
(3)
Inventory
(4)
Average Cost
Per Unit
(5)
Capital Value
Play Equipment lot 19 110,000 2,090,000
Skateboard Park, lighted park 1 500,000 500,000
Soccer Field, All-Weather Surface field 1 340,000 340,000
Tennis Court court 9 165,000 1,485,000
Tennis Court, Lighted court 8 210,000 1,680,000
Volleyball Court, Sand court 2 45,000 90,000
Park Amenity Subtotal $48,288,735
Coulon Park Amenities
Restaurant building 2 $509,509
Picnic Gallery shelter 1 323,673
Picnic Shelter shelter 4 289,908
Bathhouse/Restroom building 1 356,289
Restroom building 2 259,676
Waterwalk, Small Boat Dock, Picnic Pads waterwalk 4 4,390,025
Deck & Bulkhead @ Ivar's deck 1 2,067,000
Boat Launch (8 lane) launch 1 1,111,835
Sail Club Launch, Wood Float launch 1 1,088,500
Bridge bridge 5 1,110,250
Fishing Pier & Shelter pier 1 457,938
Log Boom boom 1 702,750
Coulon Park Amenities Subtotal $12,667,353
Buildings
Activity Center building 5 $979,425
Neighborhood Center building 2 2,490,064
Renton Community Center building 1 5,062,334
Carco Theater building 1 1,998,806
Henry Moses Aquatic Center building 1 3,966,232
Renton Senior Activity Center building 1 2,742,035
Liberty Park Community Bldg. building 1 569,716
Cedar River Boathouse building 1 430,534
Kennydale Beach Bathhouse building 1 81,466
Grandstand structure 1 630,925
Greenhouse building 1 65,293
Buildings Subtotal $19,016,830
Total Capital Value $204,644,604
2010 Population 84,928
Capital Value per Person $2,409.62
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 43 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 33
Company
Formula P-2: Value Needed for Growth
Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2.
The first step in determining growth’s needs is to calculate the total value of
parks and recreational facilities that are needed for growth. The calculation is
accomplished by multiplying the investment per person (from Table 9) times the
number of new persons that are forecast for the City’s growth.
P-2. Capital Value
per Person x Population
Growth = Value Needed
for Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation: (B)
forecasts of future population growth.
Variable (B): Forecast Population Growth
As part of the City of Renton long-range planning process, including its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City
prepares forecasts of future growth. During the next 6 years the City expects
3,486 additional dwelling units with an average of 2.2 persons per dwelling unit.
This will bring 7,669 additional people to Renton.
Table 10 shows the calculation of the value of parks and recreational facilities
needed for growth. Column 1 lists the current capital value per person from
Table 9, Column 2 shows the growth in population that is forecast, and Column 3
is the total value of parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the
growth that is forecast for Renton.
Table 10: Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Growth
(1)
Capital
Value
per Person
(2)
Forecast
Population
Growth
(3)
Value
Needed
for Growth
$ 2,409.62 7,669 $ 18,479,412
Table 10 shows that Renton needs parks and recreational facilities valued at
$18,479,412 in order to serve the growth of 7,669 additional people who are
expected to be added to the City’s existing population. The future investment
needed for growth will be $18,479,412 unless the City has existing reserve
capacity in its parks and recreational facilities or other unused assets.
Formula P-3. Investment Needed for Growth
The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any
existing reserve capacity and any existing balance in the impact fee account
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 44 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 34
Company
from the total value of parks and recreational facilities needed to serve the
growth.
P-3.
Value
Needed
for
Growth
-
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
-
Uncommitted
Balance in
Impact Fee
Account
=
Investment
Needed for
Growth
There are two new variables used in formula 3 that require explanation: (C)
value of existing reserve capacity of parks and recreational facilities, and (D)
the uncommitted balance in the impact fee account.
Variable (C): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity
The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City’s
existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities, and the value of those
assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing
population. Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets
and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value
that can be used to serve future population growth)5.
Variable (D): Uncommitted Balance in Impact Fee Account
Any unexpended and uncommitted balance in the park impact fee account is
an asset that can be used to increase the value of park and recreation assets,
thus reducing the amount that needs to be invested for future growth.
Table 11 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that is needed for growth. Column 1 lists the value of parks and
recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 10), Column 2 shows
the value of existing reserve capacity, and Column 3 is the remaining investment
in parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the growth. Column 4
subtracts the balance in the impact fee account, producing the net investment
needed for growth shown in Column 5.
Table 11: Investment Needed in Parks and Recreational Facilities for Growth
(1)
Value
Needed
for Growth
(2)
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
(3)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
(4)
Balance
In Impact
Fee Account
(5)
Net Investment
Needed
for Growth
$ 18,479,412 $ 0 $ 18,479,412 $ 1,100,000 $ 17,379,412
5 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing
deficiency. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether
or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for
any deficiencies.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 45 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 35
Company
Table 11 shows that Renton needs to invest $17,379,412 in additional parks and
recreational facilities in order to serve future growth. The future investment in
parks and recreational facilities that needs to paid by growth may be less that
$17,379,412 if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks and recreational
facilities.
Formula P-4. Investment to be Paid by Growth
The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of
any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total
investment in parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growth.
P-4.
Investment
Needed for
Growth
-
City
Investment
for Growth
=
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (E)
revenues used to fund the City’s investment in projects that serve growth.
Variable (E): City Investment of Non-Impact Fee Revenues
The City of Renton has historically used a combination of state grants and local
revenues to pay for the cost of park and recreational capital facilities. The City’s
plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and limited local revenues
to pay part of the cost of parks and recreational facilities needed for growth.
A detailed analysis of the City’s CIP indicates that estimated local revenues will
pay for 11.92% of park projects that add “capacity” to the park system for new
development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used
to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for
the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from
past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because
new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not
contribute to such projects.
The other potential credit that reduces capacity costs (and subsequent impact
fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those
reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and
the City of Renton. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a
case by case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid.
Table 12 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 11), column 2
shows the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 46 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 36
Company
revenues, and column 3 is the remaining investment in parks and recreational
facilities that will be paid by growth.
Table 12: Investment in Parks and Recreational Facilities to be Paid by Growth
(1)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
(2)
City
Investment
for Growth
(3)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
$ 17,379,412 $ 2,071,626 $ 15,307,786
Table 12 shows that growth in Renton needs to pay $17,379,412 for additional
parks and recreational facilities to maintain the City’s standards for future
growth. The City expects to use $2,071,626 in grant and local revenue towards
this cost (calculated at 11.92% of $17,379,412 needed for growth), and the
remaining $15,307,786 will be paid by growth.
Formula P-5: Growth Cost Per Person
The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks and
recreational facilities that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population
growth.
P-5.
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
÷ Growth
Population
= Growth Cost
per Person
There are no new variables used in formula P-5. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
Calculation of Investment to be Paid by Growth
Table 13 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to be paid by growth (from Table 12), column
2 shows the growth population (see Variable B, Formula 2, above), and column
3 is the growth cost per person.
Table 13: Growth Cost per Person
(1)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
(2)
Growth
Population
(3)
Growth
Cost
per Person
$ 15,307,786 7,669 $ 1,996.06
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 47 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 37
Company
Table 13 shows that cost per new person for parks and recreational facilities that
will be paid by growth is $1,996.06. The amount to be paid by each new
dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per dwelling unit, as described
in the next formula.
Formula P-6: Cost per Dwelling Unit
The cost per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per
person by the number of persons per dwelling unit.
P-6. Growth Cost
per Person x Persons per
Dwelling Unit = Cost per
Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 6 that requires explanation: (F)
average number of persons per dwelling unit.
Variable (F): Persons per Dwelling Unit
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the growth
cost of parks and recreational facilities per person into growth cost per new
dwelling unit. The data for calculating the persons per dwelling unit comes from
the Washington Office of Financial Management’s 2010 Population Worksheet
for the City of Renton.
Table 14 shows the calculation of the parks and recreational facilities cost per
dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units, column 2 shows the
average persons per dwelling unit, and column 3 is the cost per dwelling unit
calculated by multiplying the number of persons per dwelling unit times the
growth cost of $1,996.06 per person from Table 13.
Table 14: Cost per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Dwelling
Unit
(2)
Average
Persons per
Dwelling Unit
(3)
Cost
per Dwelling Unit @
$1,996.06 per Person
Single Family 2.55 $ 5,089.95
Multi-Family: 2 units 2.07 4,131.84
Multi-Family: 3 or 4 units 1.97 3,932.24
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 1.73 3,453.18
Mobile Home 1.81 3,612.87
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 48 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 38
Company
Formula P-7: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
The impact fee per dwelling unit is calculated by adjusting the cost per dwelling
unit to limit it to an amount consistent with the projects that will add capacity
(asset value) in Renton’s adopted CIP compared to the total investment that
would be needed to maintain the current value per person.
P-7. Cost Per
Dwelling Unit - Adjustment for
CIP Project Value = Impact Fee Per
Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 7 that requires explanation: (G) CIP
adjustment per dwelling unit.
Variable (G): Adjustment for CIP Project Value
As noted in Chapter 2, impact fees must be based on the Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) of the City. The details of Renton’s CFP appear in the Capital Investment
Program (CIP) portion of the City’s budget. A detailed review of the CIP
identified specific projects that will increase the value of park and recreation
assets, thus providing additional capacity for new development. If the value of
the specific projects is equal to, or greater than the value needed for growth
there is no adjustment to the cost per dwelling unit. However, if the value of the
capacity projects is less than the value needed for growth, the cost per dwelling
unit must be reduced to account for the difference.
The 2011-2016 CIP contains 5 projects that increase the asset value of the park
system6. The total value of the 5 projects is $9,948,000. However, Table 10
calculated that the value needed for growth is $18,479,412. The difference
between the value of the 5 projects and the value needed for growth is
$8,531,412, which is 46.17% of the value needed for growth. As a result, the cost
per dwelling unit must be reduced by 46.17% in order to limit the impact fee to
the amount that will be spent by the City for projects that serve growth.
Table 15 (on the next page) shows the calculation of the parks and recreational
facilities impact fee per dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units,
column 2 shows the cost per dwelling unit from Table 14, column 3 shows the
amount of the adjustment (calculated at 46.17% of the cost per dwelling unit),
and column 4 is the impact fee per dwelling unit after subtracting the
adjustment from the cost per dwelling unit.
6 Henry Moss Aquatic Center, Grant Matching Program, Black River Riparian Forest, Regis Park
Athletic Field Expansion, Park Master Planning Implementation, and King County Proposition 2
Capital Expenditure Levy Fund.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 49 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 39
Company
Table 15: Park Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Dwelling Unit
(2)
Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(3)
Adjustment to
Match CIP
(4)
Impact Fee per
Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 5,089.95 $ 2,349.88 $ 2,740.07
Multi-Family: 2 units 4,131.84 1,907.55 2,224.29
Multi-Family: 3 or 4 units 3,932.24 1,815.40 2,116.84
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 3,453.18 1,594.24 1,858.95
Mobile Home 3,612.87 1,667.96 1,944.91
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 50 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 40
Company
5. FIRE IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begin with an inventory of fire apparatus
and stations and the number of emergencies they responded to. Next is an
analysis of the capital cost of fire protection apparatus and stations including
calculation of the capital cost per response. The emergency responses are
summarized according to the types of land uses that received responses, and
incident rates are calculated to quantify the average number of emergency
responses per unit of development for each type of land use. The costs per
response and the response incident rates are used to calculate the number and
cost of responses to fire incidents and to BLS incidents (basic life support medical
responses) at each type of land use. The fire and BLS cost per unit of
development are combined to calculate the total cost per unit of
development. The total cost is adjusted for payments of other and the result is
the fire impact fee rates for the City of Renton.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of fire impact fees.
The need for fire protection facilities is influenced by a variety of factors, such as
response time, call loads, geographical area, topographic and manmade
barriers, and standards of the National Fire Protection Association, and the
National Commission on the Accreditation of Ambulance Services. For the
purpose of quantifying the need for fire and BLS apparatus and stations to serve
growth this study uses the ratio of apparatus and stations to incidents. The
current ratio provides acceptable levels of service to current residents and
businesses. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, therefore more
apparatus and stations will be needed to maintain standards.
Formula F-1: Inventory and Emergency Responses
The City of Renton owns a variety of fire apparatus (i.e., fire engines, ladder
trucks, aid vehicles, etc.). Each vehicle responds to many emergencies. The
average number of emergency responses per apparatus is used as one element
in calculating the cost per emergency response.
F-1. Emergency
Responses ÷ Fire
Apparatus = Responses per
Apparatus
There are three variables that require explanation: (A) fire apparatus, (B)
emergency responses, and (C) fire stations.
Variable (A): Fire Apparatus
The term “fire apparatus” applies to vehicles that the City of Renton uses for two
categories of emergency responses: fire emergencies and medical
emergencies. The medical emergencies will be referred to in this study as “BLS”
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 51 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 41
Company
because the Renton Fire Department provides Basic Life Support (BLS) responses
and is typically the first responder to medical emergencies in Renton.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) is provided by King County. ALS costs are not
included in Renton’s fire impact fee. Table 16 contains a list of each type of
primary fire apparatus and the number of each type. Renton also has several
older “reserve” apparatus that are dispatched as needed when a primary
apparatus is out of service for repairs or maintenance. The reserve apparatus
are not routinely dispatched and are excluded from the impact fee analysis
because they are not used frequently enough to have a material effect on the
cost of providing fire protection facilities.
Variable (B): Emergency Responses
The total annual responses for each type of apparatus is also shown in Table 16.
The average number of emergency responses for each type of apparatus is
calculated by dividing the number of annual emergency responses by the
number of units making those runs. In many cases, more than one apparatus is
dispatched to an emergency incident. The number and type of apparatus
dispatched to each incident varies depending on the type and severity of the
incident.
During 2010, Renton’s 50 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
16,545 times to 12,421 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an
incident requires that more than one unit respond). Using the existing ratio of
apparatus and station space per incident maintains the current level of service
and avoids any existing deficiency or unused reserve capacity. This approach
satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether or not there
are any existing deficiencies or reserve capacity in order to ensure that impact
fees are not charged for any deficiencies or reserve capacity (other than
reimbursement fees).
Table 16: Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Average
Primary Annual Emergency
Apparatus Emergency Responses
Type of Apparatus Inventory Responses Per Unit
Primary Career Service Response Units:
Engine 5 8,713 1,743
Ladder 1 1,048 1,048
Aid Vehicle 6 5,825 971
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 4 4
Brush Truck 1 15 15
Staff Vehicles 28 909 32
Other Apparatus/Equipment7 8 31 4
Total Primary Apparatus 50 16,545
7 Other apparatus and equipment include 4 specialized trailers and a dive boat.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 52 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 42
Company
Variable (C): Fire Stations
The City of Renton provides fire and BLS services out of 6 stations. Table 17 lists
the 6 stations and the square footage of fire stations and support facilities (i.e.,
EOC, shop, and tower). Table 17 also shows the total fire and BLS incidents, and
the average square footage of fire station per incident (calculated by dividing
the total square footage of all fire stations by the number of annual fire and BLS
incidents). The total incidents from stations (Table 17) is less than the total
incidents from apparatus (Table 16) because more than one apparatus
responds to many calls, but often one station is the source of all the apparatus
responding to a call.
Table 17: Fire and BLS Building Inventory
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Fire
District Station Square Feet
Inventory Annual Per
Station (Square Feet) Incidents Incident
11 -Mill Ave. S. 14,000
12 - Kirkland Ave. NE 13,200
12 - EOC 4,000
13 - 108th Ave. SE 24,400
13 - Shop 4,600
14 - Lind Ave. S. 13,050
14 - Tower 3,780
16 - 156th Ave. SE 9,760
17 - SE Petrovitsky Rd. 9,500
Total 96,290 12,421 7.75
Formula F-2: Annual Cost Per Apparatus
Formulas F-2 through F-4 are needed to calculate the apparatus cost per fire
incident. The first step in this calculation is to identify and annualize the cost of
each type of apparatus using formula F-2. The capital cost per apparatus is
based on the cost of primary response apparatus and major support
equipment. The annualized capital cost per apparatus is determined by
dividing the capital cost of each type of apparatus by its useful life:
F-2. Fire Apparatus
Cost ÷ Useful Life = Annual Cost per
Apparatus
There are two variables that require explanation: (D) fire apparatus cost, and (E)
useful life.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 53 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 43
Company
Variable (D): Fire Apparatus Cost
Table 18 shows the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in
Table 16. The cost per apparatus includes the vehicle, fire and BLS equipment,
and communication equipment. The apparatus and equipment costs in Table
18 represent current costs to purchase a new fully equipped apparatus.
Variable (E): Useful Life
Table 18 also shows the number of years of useful life of each type of apparatus.
The annualized cost is calculated by dividing each apparatus cost by the useful
life of that apparatus.
Table 18: Annualized Apparatus Cost
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Useful Life
Total Cost of Annual
Per Component Cost
Apparatus Apparatus (Years) (Col. 2 / Col. 3)
Engine $ 494,531 10 $ 49,453.10
Ladder 1,004,968 20 50,248.40
Aid Vehicle 200,000 7 28,571.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 50,000 30 1,666.67
Brush Truck 30,000 30 1,000.00
Staff Vehicles 27,183 10 2,718.30
Other Apparatus/Equipment 41,142 10.2 4,033.53
Formula F-3: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The second step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-3.
The capital cost per fire or BLS incident is calculated for each apparatus by
dividing the annualized cost per apparatus by the total annual incidents (both
fire and BLS) each type of apparatus responds to. Each type of apparatus is
analyzed separately because the number and type of apparatus responding to
an incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
F-3. Annual Cost
Per Apparatus ÷
Annual
Responses Per
Apparatus
= Annual Apparatus
Cost Per Response
There are no new variables used in formula F-3. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
In Table 19 the cost per emergency response is calculated for each type of
apparatus. Table 19 shows the annualized cost of one of each type of
apparatus (from Table 18) and the average annual emergency responses for
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 54 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 44
Company
each type of apparatus (from Table 16). Each apparatus cost per response is
calculated by dividing the annualized cost of that type of apparatus by the
total number of annual responses for the same type of apparatus.
Table 19: Apparatus Cost per Response
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Average
Annual Apparatus Cost
Annual Responses Per
Apparatus Per Response
Type of Apparatus Cost Apparatus (Col. 2 ÷ Col. 3)
Engine $ 49,453.10 1,743 $ 28.38
Ladder 50,248.40 1,048 47.95
Aid Vehicle 28,571.43 971 29.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1,666.67 4 416.67
Brush Truck 1,000.00 15 66.67
Staff Vehicles 2,718.30 32 83.73
Other Apparatus/Equipment 4,033.53 4 1,040.91
Formula F-4: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The third step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-4.
The total apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the
apparatus cost per response by the percent of fire incidents each type of
apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for the fact that multiple
apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are only
dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of this calculation is a
weighted average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
F-4.
Apparatus
Cost Per
Response
x
Apparatus
Percent of Fire
Responses
= Apparatus Cost Per
Fire Incident
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (F) apparatus percent of fire
responses.
Variable (F): Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the
annual number of incidents that Renton’s Fire Department responds to.
Emergency incidents are separated into two categories: Fire and BLS. Table 20
lists the annual number of fire and BLS incidents responded to during 2010.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 55 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 45
Company
Table 20: Annual Fire and BLS Incidents
(1) (2)
Average
Annual
Type of Incident Emergency Incidents
Fire 2,931
Rescue 9,490
Total Annual Incidents 12,421
Different types of fire emergencies need different types or combinations of
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of fire responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 21 by dividing the annual fire responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual fire incidents from Table 20. The result of the calculation in Table
21 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For
example, engines provided 2,979 responses to the 2,931 fire incidents, equaling
101.6% of all fire incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average fire incident involved 1.016 engines, therefore the cost of responding to
a fire incident includes 101.6% of the cost of an engine. Other apparatus
typically respond to only some of the incidents. Ladder trucks, for example,
respond to 18.0% of fire emergency incidents, therefore the cost to respond to
the average fire incident includes 18% of a ladder truck.
Table 21: Fire Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual Fire Related
Fire-Related Annual Incidents
Responses for Fire-Related Dispatched To
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Incidents (Col 2 / 2,931)
Engine 2,979 101.6%
Ladder 529 18.0%
Aid Vehicle 547 18.7%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 4 0.1%
Brush Truck 15 0.5%
Staff Vehicles 594 20.3%
Other Apparatus/Equipment 13 0.4%
Total 4,681 2,931
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table
22. The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of fire incidents dispatched to (from Table 21) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per fire incident.
The “bottom line” in Table 22 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $65.49. In
other words, every fire incident “uses up” $65.49 worth of apparatus.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 56 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 46
Company
Table 22: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus Fire Fire
Cost Per Incidents Incident
Type of Apparatus Response Dispatched To (Col. 2 * Col. 3)
Engine $ 28.38 101.6% $ 28.84
Ladder 47.95 18.0% 8.65
Aid Vehicle 29.43 18.7% 5.49
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.1% 0.57
Brush Truck 66.67 0.5% 0.34
Staff Vehicles 83.73 20.3% 16.97
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1,040.91 0.4% 4.62
Total 65.49
Formula F-5: Annual Station Cost
The annual station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its
useful life.
F-5.
Station Cost
Per Square
Foot
÷ Useful Life =
Annual Station
Cost Per Square
Foot
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (G) station cost per square
foot.
Variable (F): Station Cost per Square Foot
Table 23 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per square foot.
The cost per square foot is based on the average cost of the most recently
constructed station (Station 12, built in 2003). The costs include land, building,
furnishings and equipment.
The useful life represents the length of time the station will last before it needs to
be replaced. The annualized cost is calculated by dividing the estimated cost
per square foot by the average useful life. The “bottom line” of Table 23 is an
annualized station cost of $ 11.78 per square foot.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 57 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 47
Company
Table 23: Annualized Station Cost Per Square Foot
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual
Building Building
Cost Useful Cost Per
Per Life square Foot
Type of Cost Square Foot Years) (Col. 2 ÷ Col. 3)
Land $ 74.43
Building, Furnishings and Equipment 405.08
Cost of Borrowing 109.54
Total 589.05 50 $11.78
Formula F-6: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per fire and BLS incident is calculated by multiplying the annual
station cost per square foot by the station square feet per fire and BLS incident.
F-6.
Annual Station
Cost Per
Square Foot
x
Station Square
Feet Per Fire
and BLS
Incident
=
Annual Station
Cost Per Fire and
BLS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-6. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
This calculation is shown in Table 24: the station cost per square foot (from Table
23) is multiplied times the station square feet per incident (from Table 17). The
result is the station cost of $ 91.33 per fire and BLS incident. In other words, each
fire and BLS incident “uses up” $91.33 worth of fire station.
Table 24: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
(1) (2) (3)
Annualized
Annual Building Cost Per
Building Square Feet Fire and Rescue
Cost Per Per Incident
Square Foot Incident (Col. 1 * Col. 2)
$ 11.78 7.75 $ 91.33
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 58 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 48
Company
Formula F-7: Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire incident rate per unit of development (i.e., dwelling unit or
square foot of non-residential development) is calculated by dividing the total
annual fire incidents to each type of land use by the number of dwelling units or
square feet of non-residential development for that type of land use.
F-7.
Annual
Emergency Fire
Incidents at
Each Type of
Land Use
÷
Number of
Dwelling Units
or Square Feet
of Each Type
of Land Use
=
Annual Fire
Incidents Per Unit
of Development
There are two variables that require explanation: (H) annual emergency fire
incidents at land use types, and (I) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variable (H): Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Land Use Types
The emergency incident data comes from the City’s dispatch records and the
data showing dwelling units and square feet of non-residential development is
from King County’s property records for the City of Renton.
The database identifies each incident by occupancy type such as residences,
office or retail. The land use categories in this study were created by combining
the numerous occupancy types into broad land use categories for impact fees,
such as residences, office, retail, restaurant and industrial/manufacturing.
During 2010, Renton’s Fire Department responded to 2,931 fire incidents. Of the
2,931 fire incidents, 2,570 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific property address, such as a residence or
business) or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway). Of the 2,570 fire
incidents analyzed, 2,040 occurred at a specific property and 530 were traffic-
related. The records for the remaining 361 fire incidents did not allow the
incident to be traced to either a specific land use or a traffic-related incident,
therefore these 361 incidents are apportioned to land uses and traffic on the
same basis as the 2,570 incidents that are traceable. Table 25 shows the
allocation of the 361 incidents without land use designations to the property and
traffic categories using the same percentage as the 2,570 incidents for which a
location was identifiable. Thus 287 of the 361 fire incidents were allocated the
same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the other 74 fire incidents
were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 59 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 49
Company
Table 25: Fire Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location By Location By Location Incidents
Total 2,570 361 2,931
At Properties 2,040 287 2,327
% of Total 79.38% 79.38% 79.38%
In Roads and Streets 530 74 604
% of Total 20.62% 20.62% 20.62%
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of fire
incidents among types of land use: Table 26 shows the fire incidents that were
identifiable by land use type, Table 27 shows the fire incidents that were traffic-
related. Table 28 combines the fire incident data (land use and traffic), and
Table 29 shows the fire incident rate per unit of development.
Table 26 shows the distribution of the 2,040 fire incidents that are traceable to a
land use along with the percent distribution of these 2,040 incidents. In column 4
the total 2,327 fire incidents to land use (2,040 traceable + 530 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column. The
result is the total annual fire incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 26: Fire Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Percent
Fire Of All Allocate
Incidents Fire 2,327
Identifiable Incidents Incidents
To Identifiable To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use (Col. 3 x 2,327)
RESIDENTIAL 1,373 67.30% 1,566
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 31 1.52% 35
Medical Care Facility 29 1.42% 33
Commercial:
Office 39 1.91% 44
Medical/Dental Office 17 0.83% 19
Retail 191 9.36% 218
Leisure Facilities 82 4.02% 94
Restaurant/Lounge 28 1.37% 32
Industrial/Manufacturing 78 3.82% 89
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 25 1.23% 29
Education 131 6.42% 149
Special Public Facilities 16 0.78% 18
Total 2,040 2,327
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 60 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 50
Company
Variable (I): Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet
The traffic-related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 27, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of
Renton is multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land
use type as reported in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of ITE’s trip rates in
order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
“return” trip). The result is the total trips associated with each land use type. The
percent of trips associated with each land use type is calculated from the total
of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 27 the total 604 annual fire incidents that are
traffic-related (530 traceable + 74 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated.
Table 27: Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Annual
Generation 604
Rate / 2 Traffic Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent Fire Incidents
Units or Total Of Per Unit Of
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Development
Land Use Development Development (Col.2*Col.3) Generated (Col. 5 * 604)
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 249
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 3
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 5
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 41
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 6
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 174
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 14
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 25
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 58
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 5
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 20
Special Public Facilities 291,913 sq.ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 4
Total 552,630 100.00% 604
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 61 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 51
Company
Table 28 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual
fire incidents is a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 26) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 27).
Table 28: Total Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Total
Fire Annual Annual
Incidents Traffic Related Fire Incidents
Direct to Fire Incidents By
Land Use Land Use By Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 1,566 249 1,815
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 35 3 39
Medical Care Facility 33 5 38
Commercial:
Office 44 41 85
Medical/Dental Office 19 6 25
Retail 218 174 392
Leisure Facilities 94 14 108
Restaurant/Lounge 32 25 57
Industrial/Manufacturing 89 58 147
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 5 34
Education 149 20 170
Special Public Facilities 18 4 23
Total 2,327 604 2,931
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 29. The total annual fire incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 28) are divided by the number of dwelling units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual incident rate per dwelling unit or
square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 27).
The results in Table 29 show how many times an average unit of development
has a fire incident to which the City of Renton responds. For example, a
residence has an average of 0.0336863 fire-related incidents per year. This is the
same as saying that 3.3% of single family/duplexes have a fire-related incident in
a year. Another way of understanding this information is that an average single
family/duplex would have a fire-related incident once every 30 years.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 62 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 52
Company
Table 29: Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual
Fire Units Annual Fire Incidents
Incidents To Of Per
Land Use Land Use Development Unit of Development
RESIDENTIAL 1,815 53,889 d.u. 0.0336863 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 39 675,098 sq.ft. 0.0000572 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 38 505,735 sq.ft. 0.0000744 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 85 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.0000126 per sq ft
Medical/Dental Office 25 916,863 sq.ft. 0.0000272 per sq ft
Retail 392 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.0000529 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 108 851,359 sq.ft. 0.0001267 per sq ft
Restaurant/Lounge 57 358,466 sq.ft. 0.0001586 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 147 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.0000097 per sq ft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 34 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.0000323 per sq ft
Education 170 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.0000594 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 23 291,913 sq.ft. 0.0000778 per sq ft
Total 2,931
Formula F-8: Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of fire incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual fire incidents per unit of development (from Table 29)
times the annual capital cost per fire incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 22) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station.8
F-8.
Annual Fire
Incidents Per
Unit Of
Development
x
Annual
Cost Per
Fire
Incident
x
Useful Life
Of
Apparatus
or Station
=
Fire Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-8. All three variables were
developed in previous formulas.
8 Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact
fee, rather than the useful life of the apparatus and stations that provide the fire protection.
Both methods meet the legal requirements for impact fees. The method used in this rate study
charges impact fees for the first of each type of apparatus and station needed for new
development, but subsequent replacements of apparatus and stations are funded by other
revenues available to the City of Renton.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 63 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 53
Company
In Tables 30 – 37 on the following pages, each fire incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per fire incident. The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
For example, residential units average 0.0336863 fire incidents per year (i.e., 3.3%
of a fire incident per year). In Table 30, multiplying this incident rate times the
annual capital cost of an engine ($28.84 from Table 22) per incident indicates a
cost of $0.9716 per dwelling unit to provide it with fire engines for one year.
Since an engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times
the annual rate, for a total of $9.7164.
Table 30: Engine Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 28.84 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.9716 $ 9.7164
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0017 0.0165
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0021 0.0215
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0004 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0008 0.0078
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0015 0.0152
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0037 0.0365
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0046 0.0458
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0003 0.0028
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0009 0.0093
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0017 0.0171
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0022 0.0224
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 64 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 54
Company
Table 31 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a ladder truck
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
ladder’s capital cost per fire incident ($8.65 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Table 31: Ladder Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 8.65 20
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.2915 $ 5.8302
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0005 0.0099
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0006 0.0129
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0022
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0002 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0005 0.0091
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0011 0.0219
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0014 0.0275
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0003 0.0056
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0005 0.0103
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0007 0.0135
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 65 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 55
Company
Table 32 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
tender’s capital cost per fire incident ($5.49 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 32: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 5.49 7
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.1850 $ 1.2951
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0022
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0004 0.0029
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0010
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0003 0.0020
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0007 0.0049
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0009 0.0061
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0002 0.0012
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0023
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0030
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 66 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 56
Company
Table 33 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a hazardous
materials vehicle’s response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the hazardous materials vehicle’s capital cost per fire incident
($0.57 from Table 22). The result is then multiplied times the 30-year useful life of
a hazardous materials vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for hazardous materials vehicles.
Table 33: Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Hazardous Hazardous
Materials Materials
Vehicle Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 0.57 30
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.0192 $ 0.5747
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0010
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0013
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0002
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0005
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0009
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0001 0.0022
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0027
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0002
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0006
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0010
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0013
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 67 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 57
Company
Table 34 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a brush truck’s
response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
brush truck’s capital cost per fire incident ($0.34 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 30-year useful life of a brush truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for brush trucks.
Table 34: Brush Truck Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Brush Truck Brush Truck
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 0.34 30
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.0115 $ 0.3448
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0006
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0008
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0001
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0003
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0005
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0000 0.0013
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0016
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0001
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0003
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0006
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0008
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 68 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 58
Company
Table 35 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle capital cost per fire incident ($16.97 from Table 22). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 35: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 16.97 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.5716 $ 5.7163
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0010 0.0097
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0013 0.0126
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0002 0.0021
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0005 0.0046
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0009 0.0090
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0022 0.0215
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0027 0.0269
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0002 0.0016
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0005 0.0055
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0010 0.0101
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0013 0.0132
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 69 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 59
Company
Table 36 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment’s response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table
29) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment’s capital cost per fire
incident ($4.62 from Table 22). The result is then multiplied times the 10.2-year
useful life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 36: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 4.62 10.2
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.1555 $ 1.5863
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0003 0.0035
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0013
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0006 0.0060
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0007 0.0075
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0005
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0001 0.0015
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0028
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0037
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 70 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 60
Company
Table 37 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house fire apparatus. The fire incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
fire station’s capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91.33 from Table 24). The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 37: Fire Station Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 91.33 50
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 3.0765 $ 153.8260
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0052 0.2614
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0068 0.3398
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0012 0.0575
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0025 0.1241
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0048 0.2414
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0116 0.5786
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0145 0.7243
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0009 0.0444
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0029 0.1475
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0054 0.2712
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0071 0.3552
Table 38 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 30 – 37) to show the total capital cost of responses to fire incidents for one
unit of residential development.
Table 38: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost for A Single-Family
Residential Unit
(1) (2) (3)
Cost Component Cost Source
Engine $ 9.7164 Table 30
Ladder 5.8302 Table 31
Aid Vehicle 1.2951 Table 32
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0.5747 Table 33
Brush Truck 0.3448 Table 34
Staff Vehicle 5.7163 Table 35
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1.5863 Table 36
Station 153.8260 Table 37
Total 178.8898
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and station in Table 39.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 71 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 61
Company
Table 39: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3)
Fire Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Development and Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 178.89
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.07
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14
Retail per sq ft 0.28
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.84
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17
Education per sq ft 0.32
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.41
Formula F-9: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The annual cost per type of apparatus is the same as in Table 18. The cost per
apparatus per fire or BLS incident is the same as Table 19.
Formula F-10: Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per BLS incident is similar to the calculation of
costs per fire incident in Table 22. The total apparatus cost per BLS incident is
calculated by multiplying the cost per apparatus per response by the percent of
BLS incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for
the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that
some apparatus are only dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of
this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per BLS incident.
F-10.
Apparatus
Cost Per
Response
x
Apparatus
Percent of BLS
Responses
=
Apparatus Cost Per
BLS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-10. The first variable is identical to
the data from Table 19, and the second variable concerning the percent of BLS
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 72 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 62
Company
responses works identically to Variable F, but using BLS responses instead of fire
responses.
Different types of BLS emergencies need different types or combinations of
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of BLS responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 40 by dividing the annual BLS responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual BLS incidents from Table 20. The result of the calculation in Table
40 is the percent of BLS incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For
example, engines provided 5,734 responses to the 9,490 BLS incidents, equaling
60.4% of all BLS incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average BLS incident involved 0.604 engines therefore the cost of responding to
an BLS incident includes 60.4% of the cost of an engine.
Table 40: BLS Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual BLS Related
BLS Annual Incidents
Responses for BLS Dispatched To
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Incidents (Col 2 /9490)
Engine $ 5,734 60.4%
Ladder 519 5.5%
Aid Vehicle 5,278 55.6%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0 0.0%
Brush Truck 0 0.0%
Staff Vehicles 315 3.3%
Other Apparatus/Equipment 18 0.2%
Total 11,864 9,490
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per BLS incident is shown in Table
41. The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of BLS incidents dispatched to (from Table 40) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per BLS incident. The “bottom line” in Table 41 is the
apparatus cost per BLS incident of $40.04. In other words, every BLS incident
“uses up” $40.04 worth of apparatus.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 73 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 63
Company
Table 41: Total Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus BLS BLS
Cost Per Incidents Incident
Type of Apparatus Response Dispatched To (Col. 2 * Col. 3)
Engine $ 28.38 60.4% $ 17.15
Ladder 47.95 5.5% 2.62
Aid Vehicle 29.43 55.6% 16.37
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.0% 0.00
Brush Truck 66.67 0.0% 0.00
Staff Vehicles 83.73 3.3% 2.78
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1,040.91 0.2% 1.97
Total 40.89
Formula F-11: Station Cost per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per BLS incident is the same as Table 24. The formula is the same
as Formula F-6.
Formula F-12: Annual BLS Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
Formula F-12 is the same as Formula F-7. The annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is calculated using the same methodology as described for fire
incidents in Tables 25 – 29.
There are no new variables used in formula F-12. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-7, but using BLS incidents instead of fire incidents.
During 2010, Renton’s Fire Department responded to 9,490 BLS incidents. Of the
9,490 BLS incidents 9,371 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific type of property such as a residence or business)
or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway) and were included in the
following detailed analysis of incidents to land uses. Of the 9,371 BLS incidents
analyzed 7,944 occurred at a specific property and 1,421 were traffic-related.
The remaining 119 BLS incidents were not traceable to either a specific property
or a traffic-related incident, therefore these 119 are apportioned to land uses
and traffic on the same basis as the 9,371 incidents that are traceable. Table 42
shows the allocation of the 119 incidents without land use designations to the
property and traffic categories using the same percentage as the 9,371
incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 101 of the 119 BLS incidents
were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the
other 18 BLS incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 74 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 64
Company
Table 42: BLS Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location By Location By Location Incidents
Total 9,371 119 9,490
At Properties 7,944 101 8,045
% of Total 84.77% 84.77% 84.77%
In Roads and Streets 1,427 18 1,445
% of Total 15.23% 15.23% 15.23%
There are four tables that present the allocation of BLS incidents among types of
land use: Table 43 shows the BLS incidents that were identifiable by land use
type, Table 44 shows the BLS incidents that were traffic-related. Table 45
combines the BLS incident data (land use and traffic), and Table 46 shows the
BLS incident rate per unit of development.
Table 43 shows the distribution of the 7,944 BLS incidents that are traceable to a
land use along with the percent distribution of these 7,944 incidents. In column 4
the total 8,045 BLS incidents to land use (7,944 traceable + 101 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column. The
result is the total annual BLS incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 43: BLS Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
BLS Percent Allocate
Incidents Of All BLS 8,045
Identifiable Incidents BLS Incidents
To Identifiable To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use (Col. 3 x 8,045)
RESIDENTIAL 5,448 68.58% 5,517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 82 1.03% 83
Medical Care Facility 788 9.92% 798
Commercial:
Office 113 1.42% 114
Medical/Dental Office 198 2.49% 201
Retail 510 6.42% 516
Leisure Facilities 199 2.51% 202
Restaurant/Lounge 78 0.98% 79
Industrial/Manufacturing 81 1.02% 82
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 0.37% 29
Education 163 2.05% 165
Special Public Facilities 255 3.21% 258
7,944 100.00% 8,045
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 75 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 65
Company
The traffic-related BLS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 44, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in Renton is
multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land use type in
the same manner as Table 27. The result is the total trips associated with each
land use type. The percent of trips associated with each land use type is
calculated from the total of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 44 the total 1,145 annual BLS incidents that are
traffic-related (1,427 traceable + 18 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated.
Table 44: Traffic Related BLS Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Allocate
Generation 1,445
Rate / 2 Traffic-Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent BLS
Units or Total Of Incidents By
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Land Use
Land Use Development Development (Col.2*Col.3) Generated (Col 5 * 1,445)
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 596
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 8
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 11
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 98
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 13
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 416
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 34
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 60
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 138
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 12
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 48
Special Public Facilities 291,913 sq.ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 11
552,630 100.00% 1,445
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 76 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 66
Company
Table 45 summarizes the results of the analysis of BLS incidents. The total annual
BLS incidents is a combination of the BLS incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 43) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 44).
Table 45: Total Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual Annual Annual
BLS Incidents Traffic Related BLS Incidents
Direct to BLS Incidents By
Land Use Land Use By Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 5,517 596 6,114
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 83 8 91
Medical Care Facility 798 11 809
Commercial:
Office 114 98 212
Medical/Dental Office 201 13 214
Retail 516 416 933
Leisure Facilities 202 34 236
Restaurant/Lounge 79 60 139
Industrial/Manufacturing 82 138 220
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 12 42
Education 165 48 213
Special Public Facilities 258 11 269
Total 8,045 1,445 9,490
The final step in determining the annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 46. The total annual BLS incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 45) are divided by the number of dwelling units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual BLS incident rate per dwelling unit or
square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 44). The results in Table 46 show how many
times an average unit of development has an BLS incident to which the City of
Renton responds. For example, a residential unit has an average of 0.1134479
BLS incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 11.3% of all residential
dwellings have an BLS incident in a year. Another way of understanding this
information is that an average residential dwelling unit would have a BLS
incident once every 8.8 years.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 77 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 67
Company
Table 46: Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual
BLS Units
Incidents To Of Annual BLS Incidents per
Land Use Land Use Development Unit of Development
RESIDENTIAL 6,114 53,889 0.1134479 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 91 675,098 0.0001347 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 809 505,735 0.0015995 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 212 6,771,692 0.0000313 per sq ft
Medical/Dental Office 214 916,863 0.0002331 per sq ft
Retail 933 7,415,594 0.0001258 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 236 851,359 0.0002770 per sq ft
Restaurant/Lounge 139 358,466 0.0003866 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 220 15,081,742 0.0000146 per sq ft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 42 1,044,126 0.0000401 per sq ft
Education 213 2,854,937 0.0000747 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 269 291,913 0.0009211 per sq ft
Total 9,490
Formula F-13: BLS Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of BLS incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual BLS incidents per unit of development (from Table 45)
times the annual capital cost per BLS incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 41) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station.9
F-13.
Annual BLS
Incidents Per
Unit Of
Development
x
Annual
Cost Per
BLS
Incident
x
Useful Life
Of
Apparatus
or Station
=
BLS Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-13. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-8, but using BLS incident rates and costs instead of fire
incident rates and costs.
In Tables 47 – 52 on the following pages, each BLS incident rate (from Table 45) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per BLS incident. The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
9 Footnote 8 applies to formula F-13 as well as F-8.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 78 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 68
Company
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
This series of tables does not include the cost for a hazardous materials vehicle
or brush truck because, as shown in Table 40, they do not respond to BLS
incidents, therefore the apparatus cost per BLS incident for these two types of
apparatus is zero in Table 41.
Table 47 calculates the BLS related capital costs of an engine per unit of
development. For example, residential units average 0.1134479 BLS incidents
per year (i.e., 11.3% of a BLS incident per year). Multiplying this times the annual
capital cost of $17.15 per incident (from Table 41) produces the result that it
costs $1.9453 per dwelling unit to provide it with engines for one year. Since the
engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times the
annual rate, for a total of $19.4529.
Table 47: Engine Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 17.15 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 1.9453 $ 19.4529
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0023 0.0231
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0274 0.2743
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0054
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0040 0.0400
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0022 0.0216
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0047 0.0475
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0066 0.0663
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0025
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0069
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0013 0.0128
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0158 0.1579
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 79 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 69
Company
Table 48 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
ladder truck’s capital cost per BLS incident ($2.62 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Table 48: Ladder Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 2.62 20
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.2975 $ 5.9496
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0071
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0042 0.0839
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0016
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0122
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0066
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0007 0.0145
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0010 0.0203
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0008
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0021
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0039
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0024 0.0483
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 80 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 70
Company
Table 49 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
aid vehicle’s capital cost per BLS incident ($16.37 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 49: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 16.37 7
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 1.8569 $ 12.9982
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0022 0.0154
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0262 0.1833
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0038 0.0267
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0021 0.0144
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0045 0.0317
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0063 0.0443
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0046
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0012 0.0086
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0151 0.1055
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 81 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 71
Company
Table 50 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle’s capital cost per BLS incident ($2.78 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 50: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 2.78 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.3153 $ 3.1531
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0037
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0044 0.0445
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0009
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0065
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0035
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0008 0.0077
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0011 0.0107
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0011
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0021
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0026 0.0256
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 82 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 72
Company
Table 51 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from
Table 46) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment’s capital cost per BLS
incident ($1.97 from Table 41). The result is then multiplied times the 10.2-year
useful life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 51: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 1.97 10.2
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.2240 $ 2.2846
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0032 0.0322
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0005 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0005 0.0056
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0008 0.0078
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0003
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0008
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0001 0.0015
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0018 0.0186
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 83 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 73
Company
Table 52 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house BLS apparatus. The BLS incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
fire station’s capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91.33 from Table 24). The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 52: Fire Station Cost of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 91.33 50
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 10.3610 $ 518.0517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0123 0.6150
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.1461 7.3040
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0029 0.1430
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0213 1.0645
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0115 0.5744
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0253 1.2649
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0353 1.7655
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0013 0.0665
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0037 0.1829
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0068 0.3410
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0841 4.2063
Table 53 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 47 – 52) to show the total capital cost of responses to BLS incidents for
one unit of residential development.
Table 53: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS
Incidents for a Single-Family Residence
(1) (2) (3)
Cost Component Cost Source
Engine $ 19.4529 Table 47
Ladder 5.9496 Table 48
Aid Vehicle 12.9982 Table 49
Staff Vehicle 3.1531 Table 50
Other Apparatus/Equipment 2.2846 Table 51
Station 518.0517 Table 52
Total 561.8901
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and stations in Table 54.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 84 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 74
Company
Table 54: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3)
BLS Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Development an Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 561.89
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.67
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 7.92
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.16
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 1.15
Retail per sq ft 0.62
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 1.37
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 1.91
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.07
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.20
Education per sq ft 0.37
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 4.56
Formula F-14: Fire and BLS Cost Per Unit Of Development
The fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from tables 39 and 54) are
combined to determine the total fire and BLS cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot.
F-14.
Fire Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit of
Development
+
BLS Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit of
Development
=
Fire and BLS Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-14. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas and tables.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 85 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 75
Company
In Table 55 the fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from Tables 39 and
54) are added together to determine the combined total fire and BLS cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
Table 55: Total Cost of Response o Fire and BLS Incidents by Land Use Category
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire and BLS
Fire Incident BLS Incident Life Cost
Life Cost Life Cost of All
of All of All Apparatus
Unit of Apparatus Apparatus and Station
Land Use Development an Station an Station (Col. 3 + Col. 4)
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 178.89 $ 561.89 $ 740.78
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30 0.67 0.97
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40 7.92 8.32
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.07 0.16 0.22
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14 1.15 1.30
Retail per sq ft 0.28 0.62 0.90
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67 1.37 2.04
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.84 1.91 2.76
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05 0.07 0.12
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17 0.20 0.37
Education per sq ft 0.32 0.37 0.69
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.41 4.56 4.98
Formula F-15: Adjustments and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire services impact fee is to reduce the cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot by subtracting any credits for other
revenue from existing and new development that the City of Renton will use to
pay for part of the cost of the same fire protection facilities that are the basis of
the impact fee, and any adjustment to comply with RCW 82.02.050(7).
F-15.
Fire and BLS
Cost Per Unit of
Development
-
Adjustment
For Revenue
Credits
=
Impact Fee
Per Unit Of
Development
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (J) adjustment for revenue
credits.
Variable (J): Adjustment for Revenue Credits
Renton does not have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus,
therefore there is no adjustment for future payments of other revenues that are
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 86 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 76
Company
used to pay for the same new fire stations and apparatus that are required to
serve the new development. The only revenue sources to be included in the
adjustment are those that are used for fire services facilities capacity expansion
according to law and local policy or practice.
Adjustments are not given for other payments that are not used for new fire
services facilities needed for new development. Such an adjustment would
extend to payments of all taxes for all purposes to all forms of governments,
which contradicts the well-established system of restricting fees, charges, and
many taxes for specific public facilities and services10. Adjustments are not given
for revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs because
impact fees are not used for such expenses.
The final step in Table 56 (on the next page) is to further reduce the impact fees
that would be charged to new development in order to implement RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that “…the financing for system improvements to
serve new development … cannot rely solely on impact fees.” The statute
provides no further guidance, and “not rely solely” could be anything between
0.1% and 99.9%.
10 RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) requires an adjustment for revenue credits to be given only for
"...payments made or reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for
particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other
payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement (emphasis
added);"
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 87 of 424
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 77
Company
The adjustment of 3% used in Table 56 is the same adjustment percent used for
transportation impact fees. Table 56 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot from Table 55, the 3% adjustment, and the impact fee
after the adjustment is subtracted from the full cost.
Table 56: Fire Impact Fees By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total Fire and BLS
Fire and Impact Fee
BLS Per
Cost of Credit Unit of
Impact of Adjustment @ Development
Land Use Development 3.00% (Col. 2 - Col. 3)
RESIDENTIAL $ 740.78 $ 22.22 $ 718.56 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 0.97 0.03 0.94 per square foot
Medical Care Facility 8.32 0.25 8.07 per square foot
Commercial:
Office 0.22 0.01 0.21 per square foot
Medical/Dental Office 1.30 0.04 1.26 per square foot
Retail 0.90 0.03 0.88 per square foot
Leisure Facilities 2.04 0.06 1.98 per square foot
Restaurant/Lounge 2.76 0.08 2.67 per square foot
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.12 0.00 0.12 per square foot
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 0.37 0.01 0.36 per square foot
Education 0.69 0.02 0.66 per square foot
Special Public Facilities 4.98 0.15 4.83 per square foot
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 88 of 424
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:August 6, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
City Council Members
VIA:Denis Law
FROM:Chip Vincent, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Angie Mathias (x6576)
SUBJECT:Impact Fees Update
ISSUE:
Renton’s current impact fee structure for Fire, Parks, and Transportation has been in place since
1994, but the rates have never been adjusted despite the dramatic change that has occurred within
the City. Should the fee amounts and structure be updated?
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt the update to impact fees, which represents a balanced approach with fees set
well below the rates justified in the Rate Study for Impact Fees for Transportation, Parks, and
Fire Protection dated August 26, 2011. The proposed rates are reduced to 2/3 or 1/3 of the
amounts identified in the Rate Study. Additionally, the Administration recommends the fee
increases be phased in over three years with no increase until 2014.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
New growth and development create additional demand and need for public facilities. State law
authorizes cities to charge impact fees so that the new growth and development contribute a
proportionate share toward the costs of new infrastructure (fire stations and associated
equipment, parks, and roads). Impact fees are an important financial tool that helps the City keep
its infrastructure in pace with new development, while not compounding deficiencies and
reducing the City’s overall levels of service. The fees are paid one time by developers of new
construction projects and are used for improvements related to transportation, parks, and fire
protection. The fees can only be expended for physical improvements (fire stations and trucks,
park land and improvements, and streets and sidewalks), not administrative, operating, or
maintenance costs.
An extensive rate analysis was conducted using well-established methodology by a consultant
who has significant expertise across many jurisdictions and an interdepartmental team with
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 89 of 424
Impact Fee Update
Page 2 of 3
representatives from Fire, Parks, and Transportation. The group worked for over a year to ensure
the study establishes the true cost growth puts on the City’s planned infrastructure
improvements. The Rate Study for Impact Fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire Protection
dated August 26, 2011 is included as Attachment A. State Law allows the City to charge up to
the full amount determined by the Analysis, but not more. As shown below, the
recommendation of the Administration is to charge only a portion (2/3 for Fire and Parks and 1/3
for Transportation) of the amounts indicated in the Rate Study.
Fire Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees
Type of
New
Develop
ment
Potential
Fire Fee
(Rate
Study)
Fraction
to be
Charged
Proposed
Fire Fee
(at end of
phase in)
Type of
New
Develop
ment
Potential
Parks Fee
(Rate
Study)
Fraction
to be
Charged
Proposed
Parks Fee
(at end of
phase in)
Single
Family
(per
dwelling)
$718.56 2/3 $479.28
Single
Family
(per
dwelling)
$2,740.00 2/3 $1,827.58
Multi-
Family
(per unit)
$718.56 2/3 $479.28
Multi-
Family
(per unit)
$1,858.95 2/3 $1,239.92
Retail
(per
sq ft)
$0.88 2/3 $0.59
Retail
(per sq
ft)
---
Office
(per sq
ft)
$0.21 2/3 $0.14
Office
(per sq
ft)
---
Transportation Impact Fees
Type of New Development
Potential
Transportation Fee
(Rate Study)
Fraction to
be Charged
Proposed Transportation Fee
(at end of phase in)
Single Family
(per dwelling)$8,579.24 1/3 $2,856.89
Multi-Family
(per unit)$5,592.71 1/3 $1,862.37
Retail
(per sq ft)$9.66 1/3 $3.22
Office
(per sq ft)$14.82 1/3 $4.94
In comparison with a sample of peer jurisdictions (Auburn, Bellevue, Federal Way, Issaquah,
Kirkland, Kent, Redmond, and Tukwila) these recommended fee rates are less than 80% of the
average of those jurisdictions, shown below:
Total Proposed Impact Fees
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 90 of 424
Impact Fee Update
Page 3 of 3
Type of New Development
80% of Average of
Sample Peer
Jurisdictions
Renton Proposed Total Fees
(Fire, Parks, Transportation
combined)
Single Family
(per dwelling)$6,242 $5,164
Multi-Family
(per unit)$4,435 $3,582
Retail
(per sq ft)$5.04 $3.81
Office
(per sq ft)$5.48 $5.08
The Administration recognizes that this is a challenging time for development with the nation
slowly emerging from significant recession. The City is committed to economic development and
seeks to remain competitive with peer jurisdictions. However, we cannot allow our infrastructure
to significantly erode. Without new growth making a contribution, the alternatives are to raise
revenue by raising generalized taxes or to not keep up with the demands of new development
thereby deteriorating existing services and infrastructure. In attempt to balance these priorities,
the Administration is recommending the City Council adopt fees well below the rates justified in
the Analysis. Additionally, the Administration is recommending impact fees be increased
gradually over a three-year period, with no increase until 2014. This will help to provide both a
smooth transition to the new fee amounts and predictability to the development community
regarding what fees will be charged and when. Finally, it is also recommended that additional
flexibility be built into the impact fee update by allowing the fees be collected closer to the time
of sale or occupancy to assist developers by reducing “carrying costs” during construction.
CONCLUSION:
Renton’s current fee amounts associated with the impacts of new development have been in place
since 1994. It is appropriate to bring the fees more in line with the current costs associated with
new development. The Administration is proposing a balanced approach and recommends the
new impact fees be adopted.
8c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
updating Fire, Parks, and Transportation Impact Fees with increases to Page 91 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
High school golf team - Fee waiver request
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Fee Waiver Request
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community Services
Staff Contact:
Kelly Beymer, Parks and Golf Course Director
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $11,600 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Authorize a fee waiver for green fees and driving range fees associated with the Renton, Hazen,
Lindbergh and Liberty high school golf teams. The Maplewood Golf Course requires community service
from the golf team members which includes; assisting with ball mark repairs, picking up garbage on the
course and in the driving range, repairing divots and sand and seeding tee boxes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Maplewood Golf Course to waive associated fees for the Renton, Hazen, Lindbergh and
Liberty high school golf teams for the 2012 season.
8d. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a golf
course fee waiver in the amount of $11,600 for the Renton, Hazen, Page 92 of 424
H/Golf/Manager/Agenda-Committee-Issue-parkboard/fee waiver request hs summer12
CITY OF RENTON
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FEE WAIVER OR REDUCTION REQUEST
Fee Waiver and/or Reduction requests will be submitted for approval to the City Council
via the Community Services Committee.
Name of Group:Renton, Lindbergh, Hazen and Liberty High School Golf Teams
Group Contact Person: Stark Porter (Liberty) Contact Number:425-837-4807
Brian Kaelin (RSD) 425-204-2423
Date of Event:Aug. 28, 2012 – Sept. 28, 2012 Number in Party:48
Location:Maplewood Golf Course
Type of Event:High School Golf Teams – practice and matches
Staff Contact Name/Telephone:_Kelly Beymer – 430-6617 or Mike Toll ext. 6805 _
What is the total cost of the rental and applicable fees?Approx. $11,600
What is the cost of the fee waiver or reduction requested?$11,600
Describe event and explain reduction or waiver of fees:
To promote golf in the Renton/Issaquah school districts and continue the
relationship between high schools and the Community Services Recreation Dept. i.e.,
inter-local agreement.
In addition, staff coordinates community service involvement with approved teams to
assist the golf course with repairing divots, picking up garbage, and sanding and
seeding of fairways.
Staff Recommendation:Approve fee waiver for Renton, Lindbergh, Hazen and
Liberty High School golf team for their 2012 season.
8d. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a golf
course fee waiver in the amount of $11,600 for the Renton, Hazen, Page 93 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Automated Meter Reading System - Sole Source
Contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Contract
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Abdoul Gafour, x7210, J.D. Wilson, x7295
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure
Required: $
$1,758,156 (this contract from 2012
to 2016) Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $1,555,000 (2012 approved budget)Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget:
$ $4,600,000 (2011-2016)City Share Total Project: $ 100%
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Water Utility requests approval of a sole source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., in the
amount of $1,758,156.25, to provide Sensus brand metering equipment and related appurtenances for
the City to complete the deployment of an Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system.
The current contractor for the AMR contract (CAG-11-084), United Pipe & Supply has closed its
operation in Washington and can no longer provide the services, materials, and metering equipment
needed for the City to complete the deployment of the AMR system. The City needs to enter into a sole
source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $1,758,156.25 to provide necessary
Sensus brand metering equipment and related appurtenances to complete the deployment of an
Automated Meter Reading system. The radios and metering equipment are manufactured by Sensus
Metering Systems and with the closing of United Pipe & Supply, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. is now the
only authorized full-line distributor of all Sensus metering products in Washington.
The Water Utility has budgeted sufficient funding in our 2012 Capital Improvement Program budget
(account #425/55591 with $1,555,000 in 2012) to cover the AMR contract cost and other anticipated
project costs to the end of fiscal year 2012. Funding for the project costs for 2013 to 2016 will be
requested through the budget request and approval process. To reduce impact to the annual budgets for
capital improvement projects, the AMR project will be phased in over a 6-year period (2011-2016) and
the total budget is $4,600,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contract and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract with Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $1,758,156.25, to provide all system components for an Automated
Meter Reading system, including hardware, software, training City staff, project management, and
consulting services.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 94 of 424
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:August 10, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor, x7210
J.D. Wilson, Water Utility/GIS Engineer, x7295
SUBJECT:Automated Meter Reading System - Sole Source Contract with
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
ISSUE:
Should Council approve a sole source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., in the
amount of $1,758,156.25, to provide Sensus brand metering equipment and related
appurtenances for the City to complete the deployment of an Automated Meter Reading
system to improve the efficiency of the operation, management, and customers’ billing
for the City’s drinking water system?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contract and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract
with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $1,758,156.25, to provide necessary
metering equipment and related appurtenances for the City to complete the
deployment of an Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
1.Termination of current AMR contract with United Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. (United
Pipe):
In April 2011, with Council’s approval, the City entered into a contract (CAG-11-084) in
the amount of $2,388,861.08 with United Pipe for the acquisition and installation of the
AMR system. The contract requires United Pipe to provide and install all system
components for an Automated Meter Reading system. System components include a
Sensus Flexnet AMR system which is manufactured by Sensus Metering Systems
(“Sensus”), related hardware, software, base stations, repeaters, and end point radios.
From April 2011 to May 15, 2012, United Pipe has completed the work related to the
installation of the hardware and software, base stations, repeaters, and training of City
staff on the use and installation of the system, and the system is currently operational.
The City’s payment to United Pipe for work completed under the contract as of
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 95 of 424
Mr. Rich Zwicker, Council President
Page 2 of 4
August 10, 2012
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3499 - Automated Meter Reading
System\Contract with Ferguson\draft-issue-paper.doc\AGah
May 15, 2012, is $597,688.57, summarized in the following table:
Description of tasks and deliverables Contract Cost % completed by
United Pipe as of
May 15, 2012
1 Providing and installing system software for
the data management system and hardware,
electrical power, fiber optic cables, site work,
including three Tower Gateway Base stations
and repeaters.
$197,366.94 100%
2 Providing end-point radios for the 17,000
City’s water meters.
$2,127,217.64 19%
3 Providing the interface between the AMR
system and the utility billing system.
$44,347.50 100%
4 Training of City water maintenance staff who
will be installing portions of the system, and
City engineering, maintenance, and utility
billing staff who will be using the data
management system.
$19,929.00 100%
Total costs for contract with United Pipe and
Supply, Co., Inc.
$2,388,861.08 $597,688.57
(25%)
In May 2012, United Pipe closed down its operation in Washington and in several other
states and began liquidating its assets. The main remaining item under the contract is
for the City to purchase Sensus brand end-point radios for approximately 13,100 water
meters. Under the contract, the City water maintenance staff will install the radios on
the meters.
2.Justification for a sole contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., for purchase of
Sensus SmartPoint radios, Sensus meters, and related components:
As part of the City’s contract with United Pipe for the acquisition of the Sensus Flexnet
AMR system, the City intended to purchase approximately 16,080 end-point radios from
United Pipe over a 5-year period. The radios are manufactured by Sensus Metering
Systems and United Pipe was the only authorized full-line distributor of all Sensus
metering products in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
Following the closure of United Pipe’s operations in Washington in May 2012, Sensus
has designated Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. as the only authorized full-line water
distributor for all of its waterworks and metering products. In order for the City to have
a uniform, complete, and reliable meter reading system compatible with the Sensus
Flexnet system, the City will need to purchase the Sensus SmartPoint radios through a
sole source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
3.Standardization of Sensus meters:
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 96 of 424
Mr. Rich Zwicker, Council President
Page 3 of 4
August 10, 2012
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3499 - Automated Meter Reading
System\Contract with Ferguson\draft-issue-paper.doc\AGah
Starting in the 1980s, the City water maintenance department has standardized the use
of Sensus brand meters as part of the ongoing replacement of aging meters that can no
longer provide accurate readings. The City also installed Sensus meters on all water
service requests from customers and developers.
As part of the AMR project, the City will need to purchase new water meters, meter
bodies, and registers to replace the existing aging meters and meters that are not
compatible with the new Sensus Flexnet AMR technology. Existing meters that are over
10 years old will also be replaced with new meters equipped with AMR. Meters that are
less than 10 years old will be upgraded by having their registers replaced to adapt to the
AMR system. This effort would require the replacement of 11,000 to 12,000 meters
over a 6-year period at an annual estimated cost of $288,000 per year.
It would be cost effective and also in the City’s best interest to select and use one
standard water meter manufactured by Sensus to provide operational compatibility with
the Sensus Flexnet AMR technology. Compatibility and use of common meters and
replacement parts are paramount considerations in minimizing the City’s ongoing
maintenance costs and facilitating future upgrades to “smart” Sensus meters throughout
the City.
Since Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. is the only authorized full-line water distributor for all
Sensus metering products, the City will need to purchase the Sensus meters and related
parts through a sole source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
The Water Utility has budgeted sufficient funding in our 2012 Capital Improvement
Program budget (account #425/55591 with $1,555,000 in 2012) to cover the AMR
contract cost and other anticipated project costs to the end of fiscal year 2012. Funding
for the project costs for 2013 to 2016 will be requested through the budget request and
approval process.
CONCLUSION:
The City needs to continue the deployment of an Automated Meter Reading system in
order to significantly improve the City’s efficiency for the operation and management of
our drinking water system. The AMR system will also provide us with valuable
information for the planning of capital projects and for water conservation efforts.
Customer billing can be done in a more timely and accurate manner.
Council’s approval of a sole source contract with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. is needed as
required under City Policy 250-02 on Purchasing, Bidding, and Contracting when there is
exclusive distributorship of product or service or if such service or product is clearly
unique. In this case, a sole source contract is needed since Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. is
the only distributor of Sensus metering products in Washington.
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
JoAnn Wykpisz, PW Principal Financial and Admin Analyst
File
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 97 of 424
Mr. Rich Zwicker, Council President
Page 4 of 4
August 10, 2012
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3499 - Automated Meter Reading
System\Contract with Ferguson\draft-issue-paper.doc\AGah
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 98 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
City of Renton Contract
For Supply of AMR / AMI System Components
THIS CONTRACT, made this _____ Day of _______, 2012, by and between the City of Renton,
Washington, an Optional Code city and a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter "City")
and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., with its principal place of business at 24205 Woodinville – Snohomish Road,
Woodinville, WA 98072 (hereinafter "Contractor”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has caused Contract documents for:
Contract No. :
Contract Title : Supply of AMR / AMI System Components
to be prepared for certain Work as described therein; and
WHEREAS, the City has been deploying and continues to deploy a Sensus FlexNet automated meter
reading and advanced metering infrastructure system (AMR / AMI system);
WHEREAS, the Contractor is the sole supplier of Sensus water system products, including Sensus
FlexNet products, for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska;
WHEREAS, the City has accepted the Contractor's offer to provide the goods and Services in
accordance with the Contract's terms; and
WHEREAS, by executing this Contract, the Contractor represents that the waiver of the Contractor's
immunity under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW, as set forth in the Contract documents was mutually
negotiated by the parties; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties herein
contained and to be performed, the Contractor hereby agrees to supply the goods and Services at the price
and on the terms and conditions herein contained, and to assume and perform all of the covenants and
conditions herein required of the Contractor, and the City agrees to pay the Contractor the Contract price
provided herein for the supply of the goods and Services and the performance of the covenants set forth
herein.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 99 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
THE FURTHER TERMS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS of the Contract are set forth in the following
order of precedence:
(1) Contract Amendment
(2) The Contract Document which includes this City of Renton Contract and the following
Attachments, which are incorporated by this reference:
A. Price
B. Statement of Work
C. Fair Practices Policy Affidavit of Compliance
D. Affidavit and Certification Form
E. Contractor’s Insurance Forms
F. ACORD Form
G. Bond to the City of Renton
CONTRACTOR CITY OF RENTON
President/Partner/Owner - Signature Denis Law, Mayor
President/Partner/ Owner – Printed Name
ATTEST:
Secretary – Signature
Secretary – Printed Name
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
Firm Name
check one
Individual Partnership Corporation Incorporated in ______________________
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 100 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITION OF WORDS AND TERMS ............................................................................................ 5
I. STANDARD CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................ 7
1.1 Administration .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Contract Amendment ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Termination for Convenience/Default/Non-Appropriation ......................................................... 7
1.4 Force Majeure .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Washington State Sales Tax ......................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Taxes, Licenses, and Certificate Requirements ......................................................................... 9
1.7 Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.8 Indemnification and Hold Harmless ............................................................................................. 9
1.9 Applicable Law and Forum .......................................................................................................... 10
1.10 Conflicts of Interest and Non-Competitive Practices ............................................................... 10
1.11 Claims and Appeals ...................................................................................................................... 11
1.12 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 11
1.13 Maintenance of Records .............................................................................................................. 11
1.14 Other Public Agency Orders ........................................................................................................ 12
1.15 Environmental Purchasing Policy ............................................................................................... 12
1.16 Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity ......................................................... 12
1.17 Prevailing Wages and Retainage ............................................................................................... 14
1.18 Contract Bond ................................................................................................................................ 14
1.19 Severability ..................................................................................................................................... 15
1.20 No waiver of Breach ..................................................................................................................... 15
II. SPECIFIC CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................ 16
SECTION 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.1 Execution of the Contract ............................................................................................................. 16
2.2 Contract Term ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.3 Notices ............................................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Notices for Appeal: ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Payment Procedures .................................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Purchase Orders ........................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Pricing ............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.8 Shipping Charges .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.9 Acceptance Process ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.10 Warranty Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 19
2.11 Warranty Remedies ...................................................................................................................... 19
2.12 Defective Work .............................................................................................................................. 20
2.13 Independent Status of Contractor ............................................................................................... 20
2.14 Public Disclosure Requests ......................................................................................................... 20
2.15 Product Return ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.16 No Prototype Components .......................................................................................................... 21
2.17 Industrial and Hazardous Waste ................................................................................................. 21
2.18 Prohibition on Asbestos-Containing Products .......................................................................... 21
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 101 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
III. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 22
SECTION 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.1 Evidence and Cancellation of Insurance ................................................................................... 22
3.2 Insurance Requirements .............................................................................................................. 22
3.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance ....................................................................................................... 23
Attachment A: Price ....................................................................................................................... 25
Attachment B: Statement of Work ............................................................................................... 26
Attachment C: Fair Practice Policy Affidavit of Compliance .................................................. 29
Attachment D: Affidavit and Certification Form ........................................................................ 30
Attachment E: Contractor’s Insurance Forms ........................................................................... 31
Attachment F: ACORD Form ........................................................................................................ 32
Attachment G: Bond to the City of Renton ................................................................................ 33
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 102 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
DEFINITION OF WORDS AND TERMS
Words and terms shall be given their ordinary and usual meanings. Where used in the Contract Documents, the
following words and terms shall have the meanings indicated. The meanings shall be applicable to the singular, plural,
masculine, feminine and neuter of the words and terms.
Acceptable, Acceptance or Accepted: Written Documentation of the City’s determination that the Contractor's
Work has been completed in accordance with the Contract.
Contract Amendment: A written change to the Contract modifying, deleting or adding to the terms or Statement
of Work, signed by both parties, with or without notice to the sureties.
Contract or Contract Documents: The writings and drawings embodying the legally binding obligations between
the City and the Contractor for completion of the Work under the Contract as set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of
this document.
Contractor: The individual, association, partnership, firm, company, corporation, or combination thereof,
including joint ventures, contracting with the City for the performance of Services or Work under the
Contract.
Cost Analysis: The review, evaluation and verification of cost data and the evaluation of the specific elements of
costs and profit. Cost Analysis is the application of judgment using criteria to project from the data to the
estimated costs in order to form an opinion on the degree to which proposed costs represent what the
Contract should cost, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.
City: City of Renton and its officers, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors.
Day: Calendar Day.
Documentation: Technical publications and/or documentation relating to the use of the Software or Services to
be Provided and delivered by Contractor under this Contract, such as reference manuals, training manuals,
user manuals, maintenance manuals, installation, systems administration and technical guides designed to
instruct the City on the features, uses, and functions of the Software or Services.
Effective Date: The date the Contract is countersigned by the City.
Enhancement: Technical or functional additions to improve functionality and/or operations.
Error: An unanticipated Software problem resulting in program behavior not 1) following the Software’s logical
design, 2) consistent with functionality described in Paragraph V Documentation, and/or 3) consistent with
the requirements of the Contract.
Final Acceptance
Hardware: Tangible goods, excluding software and data, including, but not limited to, motherboard(s);
firmware; memory; internal or external expansion card(s); power supply(s); fan(s); storage controller(s);
internal or external hard disk(s); CD-ROM, DVD, Blu-Ray or other media drive(s); graphics controller(s);
display screen(s); human interface devices e.g. keyboard, mouse, track ball, touch pad, web camera,
microphone; biometric readers e.g. fingerprint scanner(s), retina scanner(s), voice print analyzer(s); security
token(s) e.g. Express Card(s), Smart Card(s), PC card(s), USB token(s), crypto key generator(s); software
authorizing devices e.g. serial, parallel, or USB dongle(s); equipment or devices to connect the computer to
external peripheral equipment such as networks, printers or scanners; cable(s), coupler(s) or adaptor(s);
mounting or supporting device(s); housing(s); enclosure(s); external subsystems e.g. Ethernet switch(es),
storage system(s), tape drive(s), radios, communication systems, and/or UPS(s).
: The point when City acknowledges that the Contractor has performed the entire Work in
accordance with the Contract.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 103 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Object Code: The executable, machine-readable, form of a Software program. Object code is instruction code in
machine language produced as the output of a compiler or an assembler.
Person: Includes individuals, associations, firms, companies, corporations, partnerships, and joint ventures.
Price Analysis: The process of examining and evaluating a price without evaluating its separate cost elements
and proposed profit.
Project Manager: The individual designated by the City to manage the project on a daily basis and who may
represent the City for Contract administration. This Contract may be part of a larger City project.
Project Sponsor: Individual designated by the City to conduct the Contract solicitation process, draft and
negotiate Contracts, resolves contractual issues and supports the Project Manager during Contract
performance.
Provide: Furnish without additional charge.
RCW: The Revised Code of Washington.
Request For Proposal (“RFP”): The original “Request for Proposal” published by the City of Renton, including
Addenda thereto and written clarifications made by the City of Renton in response to contractor inquiries.
Response to RFP: Those documents and materials submitted by contractors to the City of Renton in response to
the RFP.
Statement of Work (“SOW”): That Attachment to the Contract consisting of written descriptions of Services to be
performed, or the goods to be Provided or the technical requirements to be fulfilled under this Contract.
Services: The furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor for the following, but not limited to: installation,
maintenance, support, configuration, custom Software, or consulting.
Software: All or any portion of the then commercially available version(s) of the computer executable programs
and Enhancements thereto, including Source Code, localized versions of the computer executable programs
and Enhancements thereto, including Source Code and Documentation licensed and delivered by Contractor
to the City.
Source Code: A set of human readable instructions, written in a programming language, that must be translated
to Object Code before the program can run on a computer.
Subcontractor: The individual, association, partnership, firm, company, corporation, or joint venture entering
into an agreement with the Contractor to perform any portion of the Work covered by this Contract.
Update: All published revisions to the Documentation and copies of the revised, Enhanced, or modified
Software, which are not designated by Contractor as new products.
Upgrade: Subsequent releases of the Software and Documentation that generally have a new major version
number, i.e. version 6.3 to version 7.0.
Virus: Software code that is intentionally and specifically constructed for the purpose of destroying, interrupting
or otherwise adversely impacting other code or data in a computer, such as replicating itself or another
program many times without any useful purpose.
Work: Everything to be Provided and done for the fulfillment of the Contract and shall include all Software,
Hardware and Services specified under this Contract, including Contract Amendments and settlements.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 104 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
I. STANDARD CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.1 Administration
This Contract is between the City and the Contractor who shall be responsible for Providing the Work described
herein. The City is not party to defining the division of Work between the Contractor and its Subcontractors, if
any, and the Statement of Work has not been written with this intent.
The Contractor represents that it has or shall obtain all personnel, materials and equipment required to perform
Work hereunder. In accordance with the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information System Policy 4.5, all contractor
employees that might access City systems will be required to comply with the personnel security screening
requirements set forth in the policy. That screening may include, but is not limited to, a state of residency
fingerprint check and additional screening as deemed appropriate by the City. All screening will be done prior to
access to the City’s systems, either from the contractor’s site or the City’s. Should the contractor send an
employee that has either not been screened, or fails the security screening, for any reason, the City retains the
right to turn away such employee and prohibit his/her access. All travel costs, if any, for such employee will be
the responsibility of the contractor. The City retains the right to approve contractor employees assigned to the
project and request a change of personnel based on employee performance. The City may refuse project staff
for any reason.
The Contractor's performance under this Contract may be monitored and reviewed by City personnel. Reports
and data required to be Provided by the Contractor shall be delivered to the City as described herein.
1.2 Contract Amendment
All changes to the Contract shall be through a Contract Amendment. No oral order or conduct by the City shall
constitute a change to the Contract. If any Contract Amendment causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or
the time required for performance of any part of the Work under this Contract, the Contract may be modified if
agreed to in writing by both parties. Contract Amendments may require a Cost/Price Analysis to determine the
reasonableness of the proposed adjustments to the Contract.
1.3 Termination for Convenience/Default/Non-Appropriation
A.
The City for its convenience may terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, at any time by written notice
sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Contractor. After receipt of a Notice of Termination
(“Notice”), and except as directed by the City, the Contractor shall immediately stop Work as directed in
the Notice, and comply with all other requirements in the Notice. The Contractor shall be paid its costs,
including necessary and reasonable Contract closeout costs and profit on that portion of the Work
performed and Accepted up to the date of termination as specified in the notice. The Contractor shall
promptly submit its request for the termination payment, together with detailed supporting
documentation. If the Contractor has any property in its possession belonging to the City, the Contractor
shall account for the same and dispose of it in the manner the City directs. All termination payment
requests may be subject to Cost or Price Analysis.
Termination for Convenience
B.
If the Contractor does not deliver Work in accordance with the Contract, or the Contractor fails to perform
in the manner called for in the Contract, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any material provisions of
the Contract, the City may terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, for default as follows:
Termination for Default
1. A “Notice to Cure” shall be served on the Contractor by certified mail (return receipt requested)
or delivery service capable of providing a receipt. The Contractor shall have thirty (30) Days to
cure the default or provide the City with a detailed written plan, which indicates the time and
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 105 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
methods needed to bring the Work into compliance and cure the default, or as otherwise set
out in the Contract or noted in the Maintenance Agreement.
2. If the Contractor has not cured the default or the plan to cure the default is not acceptable to
the City, the City may terminate the Contract. Termination shall occur by serving a Notice of
Termination by certified mail (return receipt requested) or delivery service capable of providing
a receipt on the Contractor setting forth the manner in which the Contractor is in default and
the effective date of termination.
3. The Contractor shall only be paid for Work delivered and Accepted, less any damages to the City
caused by or arising from such default.
4. The termination of this Contract shall in no way relieve the Contractor from any of its obligations
under this Contract as to the work performed as of the effective date of termination, nor shall
such termination limit the rights and remedies of the City hereunder as to the work performed
as of the effective date of termination
C.
If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way during the Contract term or in
any Contract Amendment hereto, the City may, upon written notice to the Contractor, terminate this
Contract in whole or in part.
Termination for Non-Appropriation
Payment shall not exceed the appropriation for the year in which termination is effected. If the Contract is
terminated for non-appropriation:
1. The City shall be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Contract for
Services performed and Accepted prior to the effective date of termination; and,
2. The Contractor shall be released from any obligation under this Contract (including any related
purchase order) to provide further Work pursuant to the Contract.
Funding under this Contract beyond the current appropriation year is conditional upon the appropriation
by the City Council of sufficient funds to support the activities described in this Contract. Should such an
appropriation not be approved, the Contract shall terminate at the close of the current appropriation
year. The appropriation year ends on December 31 of each year.
1.4 Force Majeure
The term "force majeure" shall include, without limitation by the following enumeration: acts of nature, acts of
civil or military authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents, shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial,
civil or public disturbances causing the inability to perform the requirements of this Contract. If a party is
rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event or any other cause not within such party’s control,
to perform or comply with any obligation or condition of this Contract, upon giving notice and reasonably full
particulars to the other party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent commercially practicable to restore normal operations. In the event the Contractor ceases to be excused
pursuant to this provision, then the City shall be entitled to exercise any remedies otherwise provided for in this
Contract, including Termination for Default. Whenever a force majeure event causes the Contractor to allocate
limited resources between or among the Contractor’s customers, the City shall receive no less priority in respect
to such allocation than any of the Contractor’s other customers. In the event of any such delay, the date of
performance shall be extended for a period equal to the time lost by reason of the delay.
1.5 Washington State Sales Tax
The Contractor shall register for payment of sales taxes in the State of Washington. The Contractor shall add the
sales tax to each invoice and upon receipt of payment from the City, promptly remit appropriate amounts to the
State of Washington.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 106 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
1.6 Taxes, Licenses, and Certificate Requirements
This Contract and any of the Work Provided hereunder is contingent and expressly conditioned upon the ability
of the Contractor to Provide the specified goods or Services consistent with applicable federal, state or local
laws and regulations. If, for any reason, the Contractor's required licenses or certificates are terminated,
suspended, revoked or in any manner modified from their status at the time this Contract becomes effective,
the Contractor shall notify the City immediately of such condition in writing.
The Contractor and Subcontractor(s) shall maintain and be liable for all taxes, fees, licenses, permits and costs as
may be required by applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations as may be required to Provide the
Work under this Contract.
The Contractor and Subcontractor(s) shall maintain throughout the term of the Contract a City of Renton
Business License.
1.7 Assignment
Neither party shall assign or transfer any interest, obligation or benefit under or in this Contract, whether by
change of control of greater than 51%, transfer of a controlling interest of greater than 51%, sale of assets or
stock, merger with another entity, assignment or novation, without written consent of the other party. If
assignment or transfer is approved, this Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors of the assigning party. This provision shall not prevent Contractor from pledging any proceeds from
this Contract as security to a lender subject to city approval. An assignment or transfer shall be accepted by
either party upon the posting of all required bonds, securities and the like by the assignee and the written
agreement by assignee to assume and be responsible for the obligations and liabilities of the Contract, known
and unknown, and applicable law.
1.8 Indemnification and Hold Harmless
A.
The Contractor shall protect, indemnify, defend and save harmless the City from any and all claims or
lawsuits alleging a violation of a third party’s copyright or patent rights. So long as the City gives
Contractor prompt notice of any infringement claim brought against the City regarding the Software and
the City gives Contractor information, reasonable assistance, and sole authority to defend or settle any
infringement claim, then, in the defense or settlement of an infringement claim, Contractor shall, in its
reasonable judgment and at its option and expense: (i) obtain for the City the right to continue using the
Software; (ii) replace or modify the Software so that it becomes noninfringing while giving equivalent
performance; or (iii) if Contractor cannot obtain the remedies in (i) or (ii), the parties may proceed to a
court of competent jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees that shall be returned to the City. Before
final payment is made on this Contract, the Contractor shall, if requested by the City, furnish acceptable
proof of a proper release from all such fees or claims. Contractor shall have no liability to indemnify or
defend the City to the extent the alleged infringement is based on: (i) a modification of the Software by
the City or others authorized by the City but not by the Contractor; or (ii) use of the Software other than in
accordance with the Documentation. If the City is required to defend itself or enter into a settlement
agreement due to Contractor's failure to defend, Contractor shall indemnify the City for its costs and
expenses as well as any judgment entered against the City.
Patent and Copyright Indemnity
B.
Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents
from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages for injuries to Persons and/or
damage to tangible property, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the
Contractor its officers, employees, Subcontractors and/or agents. Contractor's indemnification obligation
shall include but is not limited to, all claims against the City by an employee or former employee of the
Indemnification For All Other Actions
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 107 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Contractor or its Subcontractors, and the Contractor expressly waives by mutual negotiation, with respect
to the City only, all immunity and limitation on liability under any industrial insurance act, including Title
51 RCW, other worker's compensation act, disability benefit act, or other employee benefit act of any
jurisdiction which would otherwise be applicable in the case of such claim. In the event the City incurs any
costs including attorneys’ fees to enforce the provisions of this paragraph, all such costs and fees shall be
recoverable from the Indemnitor.
1.9 Applicable Law and Forum
This Contract shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, including
but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 62A RCW. Any claim or suit concerning this Contract may
only be filed and prosecuted in either the King County Superior Court or U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, in Seattle, Washington.
1.10 Conflicts of Interest and Non-Competitive Practices
A.
By entering into this Contract to perform Work, the Contractor represents that it has no undisclosed direct
or indirect pecuniary or proprietary interest in the Work required to be performed under this Contract,
and that it shall not acquire any such interest that conflicts in any manner or degree with the Work
required to be performed under this Contract. The Contractor shall not employ any Person or agent
having any conflict of interest. In the event that the Contractor or its agents, employees or representatives
hereafter acquires such a conflict of interest, it shall immediately disclose such conflict to the City. The
City shall require that the Contractor take immediate action to eliminate the conflict up to and including
termination for default.
Conflict of Interest
B.
By entering into this Contract to perform Work, the Contractor represents that:
Contingent Fees and Gratuities
1. No Persons except as designated by Contractor shall be employed or retained to solicit or secure
this Contract with an agreement or understanding that a commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee would be paid.
2. No gratuities, in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise, were offered or given by the
Contractor or any of its agents, employees or representatives, to any official, member or
employee of the City or other governmental agency with a view toward securing this Contract or
securing favorable treatment with respect to the awarding or amending, or the making of any
determination with respect to the performance of this Contract.
3. Any Person having an existing Contract with the City or seeking to obtain a Contract who
willfully attempts to secure preferential treatment in his or her dealings with the City by offering
any valuable consideration, thing or promise, in any form to any City official or employee shall
have his or her current Contracts with the City canceled and shall not be able to enter into any
other Contract with the City for a period of two (2) years.
C.
To avoid any actual or potential conflict of interest or unethical conduct:
Disclosure of Current and Former City Employees
1. City employees or former City employees are prohibited from assisting with the preparation of
proposals or contracting with, influencing, advocating, advising or consulting with a third party,
including Contractor, while employed by the City or within one (1) year after leaving City
employment if he/she participated in determining the Work to be done or processes to be
followed while a City employee. For purposes of this section (1.10 ), the term “city employee”
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 108 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
shall include any individual who may have been an independent contractor, but (a) whose
primary place of work was at the city, (b) whose work schedule was directed by any city
employee, (c) who maintained an office space at the city, (d) who managed or supervised city
employee(s), or (e) who reported hours worked to the city’s finance or payroll department.
2. Contractor shall identify at the time of offer current or former City employees involved in the
preparation of proposals or the anticipated performance of Work if awarded the Contract.
Failure to identify current or former City employees involved in this transaction may result in the
City’s termination of this Contract.
3. After Contract award, the Contractor is responsible for notifying the City of current or former
City employees who may become involved in the Contract at any time during the term of the
Contract.
1.11 Claims and Appeals
The Contractor shall address claims for additional time or compensation under the Contract in writing to the
Project Sponsor and Project Manager within thirty (30) Days of the date in which the Contractor knows or should
know of the basis for the claim. Claims shall be accompanied by supporting documentation and citation to
applicable provisions in the Contract Documents. The City reserves the right to request additional
documentation necessary to adequately review the claim. No claim by the Contractor shall be allowed if
asserted after final payment under this Contract. The Project Sponsor and Project Manager shall ordinarily
respond to the Contractor in writing with a decision issued jointly, but absent such written response, the claim
shall be deemed denied upon the tenth (10th) Day following receipt by the Project Sponsor and Project Manager
of the claim, or requested additional documentation, whichever is later.
In the event the Contractor disagrees with the determination of the Project Sponsor and Project Manager, the
Contractor shall, within thirty (30) Days of the date of such determination, appeal the determination in writing to
the Finance & Information Technology Administrator (FIT Administrator) In the event the FIT Administrator is
also the Project Sponsor, the appeal shall be directed to the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer (ACAO) of the
City. Such written notice of appeal shall include all information necessary to substantiate the appeal. The FIT
Administrator, or ACAO, shall review the appeal and make a determination in writing, which shall be final. Appeal
to the FIT Administrator, or ACAO, on additional time or compensation claims shall be a condition precedent to
litigation.
Pending final decision of a claim and appeal hereunder, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with the
performance of the Contract and in accordance with the direction of the Project Sponsor or Project Manager.
Failure to comply precisely with the time deadlines under this paragraph as to any claim shall operate as a waiver
and release of that claim and an acknowledgment of prejudice to the City.
1.12 Mediation
If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Contract, or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be resolved
through the claims and appeal process set forth in the Claims and Appeals paragraph above, the parties may,
upon mutual agreement, endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation, or other agreed
form of ADR process, prior to commencing litigation.
1.13 Maintenance of Records
A.
The Contractor and its Subcontractors shall maintain books, records and documents of its performance
under this Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for governmental entities.
The Contractor shall retain all financial information, data and records for all Work under the Contract for
six (6) years after the date of final payment.
Retention of Records
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 109 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
B.
1. Federal, state or City auditors shall have access to Contractor's and its Subcontractors' records
for the purpose of inspection, Cost or Price Analysis, audit or other reasonable purposes related
to this Contract. Federal, state or City auditors shall have access to records and be able to copy
such records during the Contractor's normal business hours. The Contractor shall Provide proper
facilities for such access, inspection and copying.
Audit Access
2. Audits may be conducted during or after the Contract period for purposes of evaluating claims
by or payments to the Contractor and for any other reason deemed appropriate and necessary
by the City. Audits shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles for governmental entities and/or federal, state or City audit procedures, laws or
regulations. The Contractor shall fully cooperate with the auditor(s).
3. Proof of Compliance with Contract
The Contractor shall, upon request, provide the City with satisfactory documentation of the
Contractor's compliance with the Contract.
In addition, the Contractor shall permit the City and if federally funded, the Comptroller General
of the United States, or a duly authorized representative, to inspect all Work, materials, payrolls
and other data and records involving the Contract.
1.14 Other Public Agency Orders
Other federal, state, City and local entities may use the terms and conditions established by this Contract if
agreeable to all parties. The City does not accept any responsibility or involvement in the purchase orders or
contracts issued by other public agencies.
1.15 Environmental Purchasing Policy
Contractors able to supply products containing recycled and environmentally preferable materials that meet
performance requirements are encouraged to Provide them.
The Contractor shall use recycled paper for all printed and photocopied documents related to the submission of
this solicitation and fulfillment of the Contract and shall, whenever practicable, use both sides of the paper.
1.16 Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity
A.
During the performance of this Contract, neither the Contractor nor any party subcontracting under the
authority of this Contract shall discriminate or tolerate harassment on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion, national origin, marital status, creed, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory,
mental, or physical disability in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or
delivery of Services or any other benefits under this Contract.
Nondiscrimination in Employment and Provision of Services
B.
the Contractor agrees that it shall not discriminate in the provision of employee benefits between
employees with spouses and employees with domestic partners during the performance of this Contract.
Failure to comply with this provision shall be considered a material breach of this Contract, and may
subject the Contractor to administrative sanctions and remedies for breach.
Equal Benefits to Employees with Domestic Partners
C.
During the term of this Contract, the Contractor shall not create barriers to open and fair opportunities to
participate in City Contracts or to obtain or compete for Contracts and Subcontracts as sources of
supplies, equipment, construction and Services. In considering offers from and doing business with
Nondiscrimination in Subcontracting Practices
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 110 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Subcontractors and suppliers, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, creed, marital status, sexual orientation or the presence of
any mental or physical disability in an otherwise qualified disabled person.
D.
The Contractor shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, executive
orders and regulations that prohibit discrimination. These laws include, but are not limited to, RCW 49.60,
Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the American with
Disabilities Act and the Restoration Act of 1987. The Contractor shall further comply fully with any
affirmative action requirements set forth in any federal regulations, statutes or rules included or
referenced in the Contract documents.
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
E.
While not a requirement of this Contract, the City encourages the Contractor to use businesses, including
Small Contractors and Suppliers (SCS), as defined herein, and minority-owned and women-owned
business enterprises in City Contracts. The term “Small Contractors and Suppliers” means that a business
and the person or persons who own and control it are in a financial condition which puts the business at a
substantial disadvantage in attempting to compete for public contracts. The relevant financial condition
for eligibility under the Contracting Opportunities Program is set at fifty percent (50%) of the federal Small
Business Administration (SBA) small business size standards using the North American Industry
Classification System and Owners’ Personal Net Worth less than seven hundred fifty thousand dollars
($750,000).
Small Contractors and Suppliers and Minority and Women Business Enterprises Opportunities
The City encourages the Contractor to use the following voluntary practices to promote open competitive
opportunities for small businesses, including SCS firms and minority-owned and women-owned business
enterprises:
1. Contact the Washington State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE)
to obtain a list of certified minority-owned and women-owned business enterprises at the
following website at http://www.omwbe.wa.gov/ or by telephone 360-704-1181 or
jwheat@omwbe.wa.gov.
2. Use the small services of available community organizations, consultant groups, local assistance
offices, and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of
small businesses, including SCS firms and minority-owned and women-owned business
enterprises.
F.
Contractor shall execute the attached City of Renton Fair Practices Policy Affidavit of Compliance form,
Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract Work, file the attached
compliance statement. (Attachment C)
Equal Employment Opportunity
G.
The Contractor shall maintain, for at least six (6) years after completion of all Work under this Contract,
the following:
Record-Keeping Requirements and Site Visits
1. Records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent
data, records and information related to employment, applications for employment or the
administration or delivery of Services or any other benefits under this Contract; and
2. Records, including written quotes, bids, estimates or proposals submitted to the Contractor by
all businesses seeking to participate on this Contract, and any other information necessary to
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 111 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
document the actual use of and payments to Subcontractors and suppliers in this Contract,
including employment records.
The City may visit, at any time, the site of the Work and the Contractor’s office to review the foregoing
records. The Contractor shall Provide every assistance requested by the City during such visits. In all other
respects, the Contractor shall make the foregoing records available to the City for inspection and copying
upon request. If this Contract involves federal funds, the Contractor shall comply with all record keeping
requirements set forth in any federal rules, regulations or statutes included or referenced in the Contract.
H.
Any violation of the mandatory requirements of the provisions of paragraph 1.16 shall be a material
breach of this Contract, for which the Contractor may be subject to damages, withholding payment and
any other sanctions provided for by this Contract and by applicable law.
Sanctions for Violations
I.
Upon completion of Work and as a condition precedent to final payment, the Contractor shall submit a
Final Affidavit of Amounts Paid to City of Renton Finance & Information Technology Department. Identify
amounts actually paid, and any amounts owed, to each Subcontractor and/or supplier (if applicable) for
performance under this Contract. Failure to submit such affidavits may result in withholding of payments
or the final payment.
Required Submittals Upon Completion of Work
J.
The contractor has evaluated its services, programs and employment practices for compliance with
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (“504”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”).
Compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
1.17 Prevailing Wages and Retainage
Contractor and Subcontractors shall pay prevailing wages. Before the first incremental payment is
made to the Contractor for an item, the Contractor and its Subcontractors shall file Intents to Pay
Prevailing Wages with the State of Washington (information copy provided to the City of Renton). The
Contractor should not pay any subcontractor for any work until after the subcontractor has filed all
Intents to Pay Prevailing Wages. The Contractor shall not receive release of retainage until all
Affidavits of Wages Paid have been filed with and accepted by the State of Washington. See
paragraph 2.5.B.2 for applicability of retainage.
1.18 Contract Bond
The Contractor shall provide an executed Contract Bond for the amount of the sum of the price for 6
units of Item 3 in Attachment A, Price. The bond shall:
A. Be on the City-furnished form;
B. Be signed by an approved Surety (or Sureties) that:
1. Is registered with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner, and
2. Appears on the current Authorized Insurance List in the State of Washington published
by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner,
C. Be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Contract by the Contractor within the
prescribed time;
D. Guarantee that the Surety shall indemnify, defend, and protect the City against any claim of direct
or indirect loss resulting from the failure:
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 112 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
1. Of the Contractor (or any employees, Subcontractors, or lower tier subcontractors of the
Contractor) to faithfully perform the contract, or
2. Of the Contractor (or any employees, Subcontractors, or lower tier subcontractors of the
Contractor) to pay all labors, mechanics, Subcontractors, lower tier subcontractors,
materialperson, or any person who provides supplies or provisions for carrying out the
Work;
E. Be accompanied by a power of attorney for the Surety’s officer empowered to sign the bond; and
F. Be signed by an officer of the Contractor empowered to sign official statements (sole proprietor or
partner). If the Contractor is a corporation, the bond must be signed by the president or vice-
president, unless accompanied by written proof of the authority of the individual signing the bond
to bind the corporation (i.e., corporate resolution, power of attorney or a letter to such effect by the
president or vice-president).
1.19 Severability
Whenever possible, each provision of this Contract shall be interpreted to be effective and valid under
applicable law. If any provision is found to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, then such provision or portion
thereof shall be modified to the extent necessary to render it legal, valid and enforceable and have the intent
and economic effect as close as possible to the invalid, illegal and unenforceable provision. If it is not possible to
modify the provision to render it legal, valid and enforceable, then the provision shall be severed from the rest
of this Contract. The invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect the validity, legality
or enforceability of any other provision of this Contract, which shall remain valid and binding.
1.20 No waiver of Breach
No action or failure to act by the City shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded to the City under the
Contract; nor shall any such action or failure to act by the City constitute an approval of, or acquiescence in, any
breach hereunder, except as may be specifically stated by the City in writing.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 113 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
II. SPECIFIC CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
2.1 Execution of the Contract
The documents constituting the Contract between the City and the Contractor are intended to be
complementary so that what is required by any one of them shall be as binding as if called for by all of them.
After the Effective Date:
A. Automated Metering Reading System Infrastructure.
1. Fixed Network Data Collection Repeaters. The City will issue purchase orders for fixed network
data collection repeaters (Sensus FlexNet Network Portals (FNP)), including installation, if field
conditions indicate the repeaters are required. It is estimated that up to six repeaters may be
necessary.
B. Meter Data Transceivers. The City will issue purchase orders for meter data transceivers (Sensus FlexNet
SmartPoint M2 510M endpoint radios).
The Contract may be executed in counterparts, any of which shall be deemed an original and which shall
together constitute one Contract.
2.2 Contract Term
The term of this Contract shall be five (5) years, commencing on the Effective Date of the Contract and subject
to the termination provisions at paragraph 1.3, Termination for Convenience/Default/Non-Appropriation. The
Warranty Period begins at Final Acceptance and continues for a period of twelve (12) months. Upon the
completion of the Warranty Period, the Maintenance Agreement begins and continues from year to year unless
terminated as described in this Contract. The Software License shall be perpetual. If during the Contract term,
additional units or services need to be purchased to provide AMR coverage to meters located within the City’s
Water Service Area as defined in the Statement of Work, the City will pay either the unit cost as identified in the
Contract or the then current market value, whichever is more beneficial to the City.
2.3 Notices
All notices or documentation required or Provided pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing and shall be
deemed duly given when delivered to the addresses set forth below.
For Project Management related notices, questions or documentation:
CITY OF RENTON CONTRACTOR
Project Manager
J.D. Wilson
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7295
jwilson@rentonwa.gov
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 114 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
For Contract related notices, questions or documentation contact:
Project Sponsor
Name: Abdoul Gafour
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7210
agafour@rentonwa.gov
2.4 Notices for Appeal:
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7311
gzimmerman@rentonwa.gov
2.5 Payment Procedures
A. Invoices
The Contractor for Work Accepted by the City shall furnish invoices to the Project Manager.
Important – When a purchase order is issued against this Contract that has the potential for multiple or
partial deliveries, a separate invoice shall be generated for each completed delivery Accepted by the City.
All invoices shall include the following information: purchase order number, requester's name and phone
number, date of invoice, invoice number and invoice total. For each item in the Contract, provide: item
number, quantity, description, Contract price and when applicable provide the manufacture, list price and
discounts. For Services, invoices shall identify either milestones Accepted, hours worked and Contract
hourly rates, or authorized fees.
The City will not be bound by prices contained in an invoice that are higher than those in this Contract.
The invoice may be rejected and returned to the Contractor for a correct invoice.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS OR TO PROVIDE AN INVOICE IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE CONTRACT MAY DELAY PAYMENT.
B.
Within thirty (30) Days after receipt of an invoice, other than a rejected invoice, the City shall pay the
Contractor for Accepted Work. Upon acceptance of payment Contractor waives any claims for the Work
covered by the invoice, accept for claims already asserted.
Payments
1. The City will pay invoices submitted by the selected contractor as progress is made against
mutually agreed upon milestones and deliverables on the implementation project and agreed
upon service stipulated in the final agreement. Prior to payment, invoices will be reviewed to
determine if billing is reflective of actual agreed upon project progression and performance.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 115 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Upon acceptance of the billing by the City’s Project Manager the payment will be processed and
submitted to the contractor.
2. Retainage. Retainage shall apply to Item 3 of Attachment A, Price. The City will withhold from
payment five percent of the price, before taxes, for these items. After the work for this item has
been accepted by the City and the City has verified that the applicable Affidavits of Wages paid
have been accepted by the State of Washington and that the taxes for these items has been paid
to the State of Washington, then the retainage will be released to the Contractor. See
paragraph 1.17 regarding filing Intents to Pay Prevailing Wages as a condition of payment.
C.
The Contractor agrees to pay each Subcontractor under this Contract for satisfactory performance of its
Subcontract within thirty (30) Days from the receipt of each payment the Contractor receives from the
City.
Subcontractor Prompt Payment
2.6 Purchase Orders
Purchase orders shall be issued referencing this Contract number. Purchase order(s) shall define and authorize
the Work by the Contractor based on the prices contained in this Contract. The purchase orders issued by the
City may reflect agreed to Contract Amendments.
2.7 Pricing
Prices shall be as stated in the Contract Price, and shall remain firm during the contract term. Any price
adjustments shall be addressed in accordance with paragraph 1.2, Contract Amendment. See Attachment A,
Price, for provisions for unit price adjustment using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
2.8 Shipping Charges
All prices shall include freight FOB to the designated delivery point. The City shall reject requests for additional
compensation for freight charges.
2.9 Acceptance Process
The City may Accept Work by phase or milestone as specified in the Statement of Work. The Contractor will give
the City “notice of completion” of Work related to a specific milestone following the Contractor’s completion of
all such Work in accordance with the requirements in the Contract.
A. Acceptance Process
Upon completion of the milestone deliverables, the Contractor will notify the City and the Acceptance
process will commence. Acceptance shall be based on conformance with the Statement of Work. After
notice by Contractor of completion of the milestone, City will issue a written notice of milestone
Acceptance or Provide Contractor with a notification of rejection, which will include documentation of the
specific grounds for the rejection, outlining items not in compliance with the deliverables.
B. Correction of Deficiencies Process
If a deliverable is rejected, Contractor will have a commercially practicable time to correct items
documented in the City’s notification of rejection. Following the receipt of Contractors’ notice that the
Work has been corrected, the City will issue a written notice of Acceptance or provide Contractor with a
notification of rejection, which will include documentation of the specific grounds for the rejection,
outlining Work not in compliance with the milestone. The project schedule will be adjusted accordingly in
the event that a dispute regarding the method or accuracy of the correction causes a delay. If the
deliverable(s) fails to comply with the milestone after Contractor’s second attempt to correct the Work
and no clear plan can be agreed upon between the City Project Manager and the Contractor’s Project
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 116 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Manager, the City will determine the appropriate corrective action(s) up to and, including declaring a
breach of Contract.
2.10 Warranty Provisions
A.
Conducting of tests and inspections, review of Statement of Work or plans, payment for Work, or
Acceptance or Final Acceptance of the Work by the City shall not constitute a waiver of any rights under
this Contract or in law. The termination of this Contract shall in no way relieve the Contractor from its
warranty/guarantee responsibility as it pertains to work completed as of the effective termination date.
No Waiver of Warranties and Contract Rights
B.
The Contractor warrants that the Work performed under this Contract shall be free from defects in
material and workmanship, and shall conform all requirements of this Contract, for a period of twelve (12)
months from date of Acceptance of such Work by the City, except that the warranty for the equipment
items (SmartPoint radios and FNPs) shall be as described in Sensus publication G-500-R14, Sensus Limited
Warranty. The exception does not apply to the installation of said items. The clock for the warranty of the
installation Work starts at Acceptance. Any Work corrected shall be subject to this paragraph to the same
extent as the Work initially Provided.
Warranty Term
C.
The Contractor shall ensure that the warranty requirements of this Contract are enforceable through and
against the Contractor's suppliers, vendors, distributors and Subcontractors. The Contractor is responsible
for liability and expense caused by any inconsistencies or differences between the warranties extended to
the City by the Contractor and those extended to the Contractor by its suppliers, vendors, distributors and
Subcontractors. Such inconsistency or difference shall not excuse the Contractor's full compliance with its
obligations under this Contract. The Contractor shall cooperate with the City in facilitating warranty
related Work by such suppliers, vendors, distributors and Subcontractors.
Warranty Applicable to Third Party Suppliers, Vendors, Distributors and Subcontractors
2.11 Warranty Remedies
A. If at any time during the twelve (12) month period immediately following Acceptance of any Work covered
by this Contract, Contractor or the City discovers one or more material defects or Errors in the Work or
any other aspect in which the Work materially fails to meet the provisions of the warranty requirements
herein Contractor shall, at its own expense and within thirty (30) Days of notification of the defect by the
City, correct the defect, Error or nonconformity by, among other things, making additions, modifications,
adjustments, or replacements to the Work as may be necessary to keep the Work in operating order in
conformity with the warranties herein. Any Work corrected shall be subject to this subsection to the same
extent as the Work initially Provided.
B. There must be a sixty (60) day warranty period, during which the City may return defective media to
Contractor and it shall be replaced without charge to the City.
C. In order to qualify for remedial action under these warranties, the City shall report a warranty failure to
the Contractor in writing within thirteen (13) months from the date of Acceptance. The Contractor shall
not be responsible for remedial action under this warranty to the extent the failure to meet the warranty
is caused by modification to the product(s) by the City or anyone other than the Contractor or its
Subcontractors, unless under Contractor’s or its Subcontractor’s direction.
D. The City shall give written notice of any defect to the Contractor. If the Contractor has not corrected the
defect within thirty (30) Days after receiving the written notice, the City, in its sole discretion, may correct
the defect itself. In the case of an emergency (a reported defect not corrected within forty-eight (48)
hours) where the City believes a delay could cause serious injury, loss or damage, the City may waive the
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 117 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
written notice and correct the defect. In either case, the City shall charge-back the cost for such warranty
repair to the Contractor.
E. The Contractor is responsible for all costs of repair or replacement in order to restore the Work to the
applicable Contract requirements or Statement of Work, including shipping charges, for Work found
defective within the warranty period, regardless of who actually corrects the defect.
2.12 Defective Work
Prior to Acceptance, when and as often as the City determines that the Work, furnished under the Contract is
not fully and completely in accordance with any requirement of the Contract, it may give notice and description
of such non-compliance to the Contractor. Within thirty (30) Days of receiving such written notification, the
Contractor shall supply the City with a detailed, written plan which indicates the time and methods needed to
bring the Work in compliance with the Contract. The City may reject or accept this plan at its discretion. If the
City rejects the plan the Contractor may be determined to be in material default of the Contract. This procedure
to remedy defects is not intended to limit or preclude any other remedies available to the City by law, including
those available under the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 62A RCW.
2.13 Independent Status of Contractor
In the performance of this Contract, the parties shall be acting in their individual, corporate or governmental
capacities and not as agents, employees, partners, joint ventures, or associates of one another. The parties
intend that an independent Contractor relationship shall be created by this Contract. The employees or agents
of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the other party for any purpose
whatsoever. Contractor shall not make any claim of right, privilege or benefit, which would accrue, to an
employee under RCW 41.06., or RCW Title 51.
2.14 Public Disclosure Requests
This Contract shall be considered a public document and will be available for inspection and copying by the
public in accordance with the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56 (the “Act”).
If the Contractor considers any portion of any record provided to the City under this Contract, whether in
electronic or hard copy form, to be protected under law, the Contractor shall clearly identify each such portion
with words such as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “PROPRIETARY” or “BUSINESS SECRET.” If a request is made for disclosure
of such portion, the City will determine whether the material should be made available under the Act. If the City
determines that the material is subject to disclosure, the City will notify the Contractor of the request and allow
the Contractor ten (10) business days to take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its interests. If the
Contractor fails or neglects to take such action within said period, the City will release the portions of record(s)
deemed by the City to be subject to disclosure. The City shall not be liable to the Contractor for inadvertently
releasing records pursuant to a disclosure request not clearly identified by the Contractor as “CONFIDENTIAL,”
“PROPRIETARY” or “BUSINESS SECRET.”
2.15 Product Return
The City reserves the right to return to the Contractor, those parts and supplies determined to be surplus and no
longer required by the City. Parts and supplies eligible for return to the Contractor shall have been ordered by
the City for inventory or as spares, be unused, and in the same general condition as when received. The City
shall advise the Contractor in writing of its intention to return any parts and supplies before the Contract closes.
Such items shall be returned within twelve (12) months of purchase.
The Contractor shall only be authorized a restocking fee if agreed to at the time of Contract execution and as
described in Attachment A, Price, for the return of parts and supplies. The Contractor shall, at the City’s option,
issue a credit for the dollar value of the merchandise returned or refund that dollar amount (less any restocking
fee) to the City.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 118 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
This paragraph does not apply to any merchandise made to order for the City.
2.16 No Prototype Components
All Work shall be in production and be used by customers comparable to the City at the time of the Contract
Effective Date. Test or prototype items shall be clearly identified as such. A sufficient inventory of the Work shall
be available to meet delivery requirements.
2.17 Industrial and Hazardous Waste
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable local ordinances, state and federal statutes, and supporting rules
and regulations governing the discharge of industrial waste to a public sewer, private sewer, or side sewer
tributary to any sewerage system.
Contractor shall handle and dispose of all hazardous wastes in compliance with all applicable local, state and
federal laws and regulations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Washington Hazardous
Waste Management Act, and applicable rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Ecology governing the generation, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of hazardous
wastes.
2.18 Prohibition on Asbestos-Containing Products
Asbestos-containing products shall not be provided to the City under this Contract, unless no practicable
alternative for the asbestos-containing product exists and the Contractor obtains the written consent of the City.
The Contractor shall notify the City in writing at least sixty (60) Days before it plans to supply the City with an
asbestos-containing product. The City shall respond to such notification within thirty (30) Days of receipt. The
Contractor shall comply with applicable state, federal and local labeling and other laws, regulations and
ordinances pertaining to asbestos-containing products, including, but not limited to, the State of Washington
Industrial Safety and Health Act and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 119 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
III. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Evidence and Cancellation of Insurance
A. Prior to execution of the Contract, the Contractor shall file with the City evidence of insurance and
endorsements from the insurer(s) certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. All evidence
of insurance shall be certified by a properly authorized officer, agent, general agent or qualified
representative of the insurer(s) and shall certify the name of the insured, the type and amount of
insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, the expiration date, and that the
City shall receive notice at least forty-five (45) Days prior to the effective date of any cancellation, lapse or
material change in the policy.
B. The Contractor shall, upon demand of the City, deliver to the City all such policies of insurance, and all
endorsements and riders, and the receipts for payment of premiums thereon.
C. Failure to Provide such insurance in a timeframe acceptable to the City shall enable the City to suspend or
terminate the Contractor's Work hereunder in accordance with Contract provisions regarding
"Termination for Convenience/Default/Non-appropriation." Suspension or termination of this Contract
shall not relieve the Contractor from its insurance obligations hereunder.
3.2 Insurance Requirements
A. The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the minimum insurance set forth below.
By requiring such minimum insurance, the City shall not be deemed or construed to have assessed the
risks that may be applicable to the Contractor under this Contract. The Contractor shall assess its own risks
and, if it deems appropriate and/or prudent, maintain greater limits and/or broader coverage.
Nothing contained within these insurance requirements shall be deemed to limit the Scope, application
and/or limits of the coverage afforded, which coverage shall apply to each insured to the full extent
provided by the terms and conditions of the policy(s). Nothing contained with this provision shall affect
and/or alter the application of any other provision contained with this Contract.
For all coverages:
1. Each insurance policy shall be written on an “occurrence” form; excepting insurance for
professional liability/errors and omissions. Professional liability/errors and omissions when
required, may be acceptable on a “claims made” form.
2. If coverage is approved and purchased on a “Claims Made” basis, the Contractor warrants
continuation of coverage, either through policy renewals or the purchase of an extended
discovery period, if such extended coverage is available, for not less than three (3) years from
the date of completion of the Work which is the subject of this Contract.
3. The Contractor shall provide the City and all Additional Insureds with written notice of
any policy cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice.
4. Failure on the part of the Contractor to maintain the insurance as required shall
constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five
business days notice to the Contractor to correct the breach, immediately terminate the
contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all
premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City
on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Contractor
from the City.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 120 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
5. All costs for insurance shall be incidental to and included in the unit or lump sum prices
of the contract and no additional payment will be made.
B.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Minimum Scope of Insurance
1. General Liability:
2.
The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the
amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. It is
agreed that on the CONTRACTOR’s policy, the City of Renton will be named as Additional
Insured(s) on a non-contributory primary basis. A certificate of insurance and the Primary &
Non-Contributory Additional Insurance Endorsement page, properly endorsed, shall be
delivered to the City before executing the work of this Contract. Please note: The cancellation
language must read “Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the
expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 45 days’ written notice to the certificate
holder named herein.”
Automobile Liability:
3.
In the event that use of an automobile is required in the performance of
this Contract, Automobile Liability coverage shall be Provided, with the minimum limits set out
herein.
Professional Liability:
In the event that services pursuant to this Contract either directly or indirectly involve or require
professional Services, Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions coverage shall be Provided.
Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions coverage.
4. Workers’ Compensation:
5.
Workers’ Compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial
Insurance Act of the State of Washington, as well as any similar coverage required for this Work
by applicable federal or “Other States” State Law.
Employers Liability or “Stop Gap”:
3.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance
The protection Provided by the Workers Compensation Policy
Part 2 (Employers Liability) or, in states with monopolistic state funds, the protection provided
by the “Stop Gap” endorsement to the General Liability policy.
A. The Contractor shall maintain limits no less than, for:
1. General Liability:
2.
$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage, and for those policies with aggregate limits, a $2,000,000 aggregate
limit.
Automobile Liability:
3.
$1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions
4.
: $1,000,000 per Claim and in the Aggregate.
Workers’ Compensation:
5.
Statutory requirements of the state of residency.
Employers Liability Stop Gap
6.
: $1,000,000.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions:
7.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall be
declared to, and approved by, the City. The deductible and/or self-insured retention of the
policies shall not limit or apply to the Contractor’s liability to the City and shall be the sole
responsibility of the Contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions: The insurance Provided pursuant to these requirements shall be on
a Primary and Non-Contributory basis. Any insurance and/or self-insurance maintained by the
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 121 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
City, its officers, officials, employees or agents shall not contribute with the insurance or benefit
the Contractor in any way.
8. Liability Policies:
To the extent of the Contractor’s negligence, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and agents.
The City, its officers, officials, employees and agents are to be covered as
additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the
Contractor in connection with this Contract.
The Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made
and/or lawsuit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
B. Acceptability of Insurers Unless otherwise approved by the City:
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests’ rating of no less than A:VIII, or, if not rated with
Bests’, with minimum surpluses the equivalent of Bests’ surplus size VIII.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of
Washington.
If at any time one of the foregoing policies shall fail to meet the above stated requirements, the
Contractor shall, upon notice to that effect from the City, promptly obtain a new policy, and shall submit
the same to the City, with the appropriate certificates and endorsements, for approval.
C.
The Contractor shall include all Subcontractors as insureds under its policies, or shall furnish separate
certificates of insurance and policy endorsements for each Subcontractor.
Subcontractors
D.
Insurance coverages provided
by Subcontractors as evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this Contract shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
The Contractor shall have the “right to control” and bear the sole responsibility for the job site conditions,
and job site safety. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local safety
regulations governing the job site, employees and Subcontractors. The Contractor shall be responsible for
the Subcontractor’s compliance with these provisions.
Work Site Safety
E.
Additional Insured Endorsement shall be included with the certificate of insurance.
Endorsements
The City requires this
Endorsement to complete the Contract.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 122 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment A: Price
Item
Number
Item Description Estimated
Quantity
Unit Price Extended
Price
Tax @ 9.5% Total Price with Tax
1 SmartPoint 520M
Single Port
Pit Set
See Notes 1, 2, 3,
5 & 6 below.
11,909
each
$119.25 $1,420,148.25 $134,914.08 $1,555,062.33
2 SmartPoint 520M
Two Port
Pit Set
See Notes 1, 2, 3,
5 & 6 below.
1,186
each
$136.15 $161,473.90 $15,340.02 $176,813.92
3 FlexNet Network
Portal
See Note 4 below.
6
each
$4,000.00 $24,000.00 $2,280.00 $26,280.00
Notes:
1. The City reserves the right to order any amounts without affecting the unit price.
2. The City reserves the right to order any items listed in its component parts.
3. If a TouchCoupler connection to a SmartPoint cannot be used and therefore, a three wire
connection is needed, the additional cost is $2.50 per SmartPoint.
4. Price includes equipment and installation of equipment and power from nearby source. See
Attachment B, Statement of Work, Repeater Site Responsibilities, for a description of included work.
5. Starting on the second anniversary of the contract execution date, and annually thereafter, the
pricing for all SmartPoints shall increase automatically. The price for that year shall equal the sum of 1)
the amount charged for that pricing component (Unit Price in the table above – the “Base Price”) plus
2) the product of the Base Price multiplied by the percentage rate of increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers Seattle – Tacoma-Bremerton (CPI-U STB) during the immediately
preceding twelve month period (which product shall not be less than zero, such that the pricing for the
SmartPoints cannot decrease). “CPI-U STB” means the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, Washington
area for “All Items Less Food and Energy”. The index measures prices changes from a designated
reference date (1982 – 1984) that equals 100, not seasonally adjusted, or substantially similar
succeeding index. Any CPI-U STB increases called forth in this contract shall be calculated to the third
decimal place (e.g., 0.025%). For reference: the CPI-U STB for All Items Less Food Energy for April 2012
was 237.931.
6. The delivery point for Items 1 and 2 is the City of Renton Maintenance Services Division Shops at
3555 NE 2nd Street, Renton, WA 98056.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 123 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment B: Statement of Work
FlexNet 520 M Radios
Supply SmartPoint 520 M radios as per Attachment A
Repeater Site Responsibilities
Repeaters are also known as FlexNet Network Portals (FNPs)
The Contractor shall:
1. Provide FlexNet Network Portals (FNPs) including mounting brackets and install them at
sites mutually selected by the Contractor, Sensus and the City. The estimated number
of FNPs is six.
2. Install the FNP units and ancillary equipment necessary to a structure as need.
3. Identify and hire a qualified installation team to install the FNP equipment, run power
from the City provided 120 VAC power source to the FNPs and make final connections.
Provide all labor, materials and equipment to make the connection in a way that meets
Sensus’ requirements for the FNPs and all local building, mechanical and electrical
codes.
4. Obtain all required permits and shall contract will a private locator to locate
underground utilities not located by One-Call.
5. Identify the optimum location to install the FNPs and communicate those locations to
the City.
6. Identify the FNP locations when it is apparent that additional infrastructure in the form
of FNPs is required to provide full coverage of the water service area.
The City shall:
1. Initiate, coordinate and acquire authorization for installation crews to climb poles, buildings
and other structures necessary to safely affix cable runs as needed for the installation of the
RNPs.
2. Provide adequate electricity to the FNP locations and is responsible for any and all recurring
electricity charges for FNP operations.
3. Be responsible for on-going maintenance and support of the equipment after completion of
the Sensus installation and acceptance phase.
Miscellaneous Responsibilities
The Contractor shall:
1. Apply for, pay for and obtain any needed work permits.
2. Pay all applicable sales taxes to the State of Washington. [When invoicing for contract items, the
Contractor shall list the applicable sales separately from the price of the items on the invoice].
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 124 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Definitions
The definitions set forth below shall apply for the purposes of this Agreement.
1) “AMI or AMI System” means the integrated Sensus Advanced Metering Infrastructure technology and
Services consisting of FlexNet, Approved Meters, installation tools, Licensed Software, AMI Equipment,
Network Equipment, RNI, TGB and related components.
2) “FlexNet SmartPoints” means collectively any FlexNet communicating device intended to transmit
meter reading and other information as appropriate from water, gas or electricity meters.
3) “Billing Window” means, with respect to the three or four day period beginning one or two days prior to,
and ending two days following, the Utility's preferred billing day for a particular meter.
4) “ Available Meter” means an installed FlexNet Meter or installed SmartPoint satisfying all of the
following criteria:
a. it functions properly is not damaged or failed or an Unavailable Meter during the Billing Window;
b. it is serviced by a TGB or FNP that has not been subjected to a power failure greater than eight
(8) continuous hours during the Billing Window;
c. neither it, nor the TGB, FNP or any other network equipment that serves that meter has been
affected by a Force Majeure Event;
d. interference or jamming of the Radio Spectrum is not preventing or interfering with radio
communication to or from a SmartPoint, provided that Sensus is diligently working to effect a
cure and provides a weekly status report;
e. it is installed in a mutually agreed upon coverage area of the Utility as defined in the final
propagation study;
f. it has not been reported to the applicable Utility under Sensus' or the Utility's preventive
maintenance or trouble ticket generation service, unless the parties agree that the reason for
the report was resolved before the Billing Window opened or that the meter is functioning
normally;
g. its functioning or performance has not been adversely affected by a failure of the Utility or its
SmartPoint installation team to perform its obligations or tasks for which it is responsible, or to
properly maintain network equipment owned by the Utility;
h. its functioning or performance has not been adversely affected by a failure or insufficiency of the
back haul telecommunications network of the Utility used for communications among the
components of the Sensus Network; and
i. It is installed in compliance with the procedures and specifications approved by and provided to
the Utility in writing by Sensus.
5) “FlexNet™” means the system comprised of the Sensus Network and the approved SmartPoints in
service in the Territory with customers of Affiliated Utilities, including back-end hardware and Licensed
Software. The backend hardware consists of the RNI hardware and TGB hardware.
6) “FlexNet Network Portal (FNP)” means a pole mounted unit with simple store and forward capability
that communicates directly to a TGB.
7) “RNI” means the Regional Network Interface consisting of equipment and FlexWare software used to
gather, store and report data collected from SmartPoints and TGBs that are part of the Sensus
Network. The FlexWare software operates on the RNI.
8) “ TGB” means a Tower Gateway Basestation consisting of hardware, firmware and software installed at
a tower site and used to communicate by radio with SmartPoints and the RNI.
9) "Tower Site" means a site on a radio tower, building, or elsewhere where a TGB is located or intended
to be installed.
10) "Tower Site Lease" means a lease, license or other right to use or occupy all or a portion of a Tower
Site for a TGB.
11) “Unavailable Meters” include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Cut At Pole — nominally a meter for which power has been turned off to the socket by the
Affiliated Utility
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 125 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
b. Booted on Line Side — nominally a meter for which power has been turned off my placing
“boots” in the socket from which the power to the meter has effectively been turned off.
c. Failed or flawed power delivery to the meter socket — an Affiliated Utility power generation,
distribution or delivery system failure that has effectively turned off power to the socket and/or
meter.
d. Tampered Meters — sockets, meters or distribution assets that have been modified by
unauthorized personnel rendering the meter incapable of providing accurate usage readings
from that meter.
e. Failed Register — the meter register is not responding to a read message.
f. Cut Wire — the wire and all associated components connecting the SmartPoint to the meter
register is cut in some way causing the radio to not be able to read the register.
g. Broken TouchCoupler — the TouchCoupler is damaged by intentional or unintentional acts.
h. Broken Clip — the clip that holds the TouchCoupler into the radio package housing is broken
and the unit can not complete the inductive electrical connection.
i. Improper installation of the TouchCoupler — the TouchCoupler is not pushed all the way into
the housing clip causing the unit to not be able to complete the inductive electrical connection.
j. Unit not installed through the pit lid — the unit is not installed with the antenna positioned
through the pit lid and properly secured with the retaining nut. The radio unit must also be
securely attached to the antenna section.
k. Radio unit not securely attached to the Antenna unit — The water-proof SmartPoint housing is
not properly installed and secured to the antenna unit.
l. Damaged antenna - the unit’s antenna is damaged by intentional or unintentional acts.
m. Damaged radio package — the unit’s water-proof radio package is damaged by intentional or
unintentional acts.
n. Data Base errors — the unit is removed from the system but not updated in the database. Still
shown as in the system when in fact has been removed.
o. Phantom Units — the unit is removed from the system but is still transmitting and being heard
by the system.
12) “Unread Meters” means any Available Meter that is not read by the FlexNet Network.
13) “FlexWare”™ software, developed by Sensus, is the software utilized in the RNI to decrypt the data
from meters, filter the data by application, and route the data appropriately to the utility customer.
FlexWare™ includes the software in all of the RNI components.
14) “SmartPoint” is a printed circuit board that provides an AMI endpoint the ability to acquire data from its
connected meter and transmit the data to AMI collection devices located at AMI towers. SmartPoints
are mounted either integral to the meter or remotely depending upon meter type and manufacturer.
15) “TouchCoupler” is an inductive coupler connection from a water register to the SmartPoint unit.
16) )“Register” is a mechanical or electronic device attached to a water meter designed to capture meter
consumption.
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 126 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment C: Fair Practice Policy Affidavit of Compliance
CITY OF RENTON
FAIR PRACTICES POLICY
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
________________________________________________________ hereby confirms and declares that
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant)
I. It is the policy of ________________________________________________ to offer equal
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant)
opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to the
race, creed, color, sex, national origin, age, physical or sensory disability, religion, sexual
orientation, or veteran status.
II. ________________________________________________ complies with all applicable
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant)
federal, state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment.
III. When applicable, ________________________________________________ will seek out and
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant)
negotiate with minority and women contractors for the award of subcontracts.
Print Agent/Representative’s Name
Print Agent/Representative’s Title
Agent/Representative’s Signature
Date Signed
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 127 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment D: Affidavit and Certification Form
CITY OF RENTON
Combined Affidavit and Certification form:
Non-Collusion, Anti-Trust, and Minimum Wage
(Non-Federal Aid)
NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
Being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is the identical person who submitted the foregoing proposal or bid, and that
such bid is genuine and not sham or collusive or made in the interest or on behalf of any person not therein named, and
further, that the deponent has not directly induced or solicited any other Bidder on the foregoing work or equipment to put
in a sham bid, or any other person or corporation to refrain from bidding, and that deponent has not in any manner sought
by collusion to secure to himself or to any other person any advantage over other Bidder or Bidders.
AND
CERTIFICATION RE: ASSIGNMENT OF
ANTI-TRUST CLAIMS TO PURCHASER
Contractor and purchaser recognize that in actual economic practice overcharges resulting from anti-trust violations are in
fact usually borne by the purchaser. Therefore, contractor hereby assigns to purchaser any and all claims for such over-
charges as to goods and materials purchased in connection with this order or contract, except as to overcharges resulting
from anti-trust violations commencing after the date of the bid, quotation, or other event establishing the price under this
order or contract. In addition, contractor warrants and represents that such of his suppliers, vendors and subcontractors shall
assign any and all such claims to purchaser, subject to the aforementioned exception.
AND
MINIMUM WAGE AFFIDAVIT FORM
I, the undersigned, having been duly sworn, deposed, say and certify that in connection with the performance of the work
of this project, I will pay each classification of laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the performance of such
work; not less than the prevailing rate of wage or not less than the minimum rate of wages as specified in the principal
contract.
I have read the foregoing affidavits and certification, know the contents thereof and the substance as set forth therein is
true to my knowledge and belief.
FOR: NON COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT, ASSIGNMENT OF ANTI-TRUST CLAIMS TO PURCHASER AND
MINIMUM WAGE AFFIDAVIT
WTR273499, AMR System ___________________________ ___________________________
Name of Project Name of Proposer's Firm Signature of Authorized
Representative of Proposer
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this _______ day of __________, 20____.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print)_______________________________
My appointment expires:______________________
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 128 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment E: Contractor’s Insurance Forms
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 129 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment F: ACORD Form
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 130 of 424
City of Renton Automated Meter Reading System Contract
Attachment G: Bond to the City of Renton
BOND TO THE CITY OF RENTON
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we, the undersigned ________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
as principal, and _____________________________________ corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of ________________________ as a surety corporation, and qualified under the laws of the
State of Washington to become surety upon bonds of contractors with municipal corporations, as surety are
jointly and severally held and firmly bound to the City of Renton in the penal sum of $26,280.00 for the
payment of which sum on demand we bind ourselves and our successors, heirs, administrators or person
representatives, as the case may be.
This obligation is entered into in pursuance of the statutes of the State of Washington, the Ordinance of the
City of Renton.
Dated at ______________, Washington, this ______________ day of ___________, 2012.
Nevertheless, the conditions of the above obligation are such that:
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Public Works Construction Contract ____________ providing for
construction of radio repeaters for WTR-27-3499, Automated Meter Reading System (project name)
the principal is required to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the contract; and
WHEREAS, the principal has accepted, or is about to accept, the contract, and undertake to perform the work
therein provided for in the manner and within the time set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, if the principal shall faithfully perform all of the provisions of said contract in the manner
and within the time therein set forth, or within such extensions of time as may be granted under said contract,
and shall pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors and materialmen, and all persons who shall supply said
principal or subcontractors with provisions and supplies for the carrying on of said work, and shall hold said
City of Renton harmless from any loss or damage occasioned to any person or property by reason of any
carelessness or negligence on the part of said principal, or any subcontractor in the performance of said work,
and shall indemnify and hold the City of Renton harmless from any damage or expense by reason of failure of
performance as specified in the contract or from defects appearing or developing in the material or
workmanship provided or performed under the contract within a period of one year after its acceptance
thereof by the City of Renton, then and in that event this obligation shall be void; but otherwise it shall be and
remain in full force and effect.
Principal Surety
Signature Signature
Title Title
8e. ‐ Public Works Department recommends approval of a sole source
contract in the amount of $1,758,156.25 with Ferguson Enterprises,
Page 131 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
NE 3rd/4th Corridor Improvements Phase 1
Intersection Improvements-Underground
Utility/Conversion Construction Agreement with
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Construction Agreement
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Keith Wooley, Project Manager (Extention 7318)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Transportation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $126,318 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $2,965,700 (2012)Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $3,425,965 (Phase 1)City Share Total Project: $ $1,443,401
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Puget Sound Energy and the City will share the cost of undergrounding PSE’s power lines within the
limits of this project in accordance with Schedule 74 Tariff G. The City will pay 40 percent of the costs
($126,318) and Puget Sound Energy will pay 60 percent of the costs ($189,478).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the underground conversion Project Construction
Agreement with Puget Sound Energy, in the amount of $126,318, to provide underground utility
conversions.
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 132 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 133 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 134 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 135 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 136 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 137 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 138 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 139 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 140 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 141 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 142 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 143 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 144 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 145 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 146 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 147 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 148 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 149 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 150 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 151 of 424
8f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Project
Construction Agreement in the amount of $126,318 with Puget Sound
Page 152 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
New Ground Lease with Bosair, LLC
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
New Bosair, LLC Lease
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager (extension 7471)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $$50,911.48
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Currently, Bosair LLC has approximately 7 years remaining on their existing ground lease. Bosair, LLC’s
main tenant, Ace Aviation performs aircraft maintenance on the airport. For Ace Aviation to continue to
serve their customers and grow their business, Bosair, LLC would like to demolish two old hangars and
an office building, construct a new hangar building and complete a major overhaul of their other
existing hangar. To complete this work, Bosair, LLC is seeking approval of a new 40-year ground lease
(7 years remaining on their existing lease plus 33 additional years) to gain bank financing of the project.
Along with the reconstruction of their hangar buildings, Bosair, LLC will increase the size of their leased
area by 29,552.88 square feet in order to better accommodate their customers’ aircraft.
The ground lease rate for the new lease will start at $0.63 per square foot per year and will remain in
effect for the first 3 years with CPI and/or appraisal increases coming every 3 years thereafter. The
increased ground rental rate and square footage of the ground leased area results in an annual revenue
of $50,911.48 for the 80,811.88 square feet of ground area. The lease contains the standard City
reversionary clause.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the new lease with Bosair, LLC and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease
Agreement with Bosair, LLC.
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 153 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 154 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 155 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 156 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 157 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 158 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 159 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 160 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 161 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 162 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 163 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 164 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 165 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 166 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 167 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 168 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 169 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 170 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 171 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 172 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 173 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 174 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 175 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 176 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 177 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 178 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 179 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 180 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 181 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 182 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 183 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 184 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 185 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 186 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 187 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 188 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 189 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 190 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 191 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 192 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 193 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 194 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 195 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 196 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 197 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 198 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 199 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 200 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 201 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 202 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 203 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 204 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 205 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 206 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 207 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 208 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 209 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 210 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 211 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 212 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 213 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 214 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 215 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 216 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 217 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 218 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 219 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 220 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 221 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 222 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 223 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 224 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 225 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 226 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 227 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 228 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 229 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 230 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 231 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 232 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 233 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 234 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 235 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 236 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 237 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 238 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 239 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 240 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 241 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 242 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 243 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 244 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 245 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 246 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 247 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 248 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 249 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 250 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 251 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 252 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 253 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 254 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 255 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 256 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 257 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 258 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 259 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 260 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 261 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 262 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 263 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 264 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 265 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 266 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 267 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 268 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 269 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 270 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 271 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 272 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 273 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 274 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 275 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 276 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 277 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 278 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 279 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 280 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 281 of 424
8g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a
new 40‐year airport ground lease with Bosair, LLC in order for the
Page 282 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements
(Garden Avenue North Widening) Project
Supplemental Agreement #3 with KPG, Inc.
(CAG-11-215)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Supplemental Agreement #3
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
James Wilhoit, ext. 7319
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 101,317.19 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ 2,566,122 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ 3,000,000 City Share Total Project: $ 908,900
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
This supplement amends the existing agreement with KPG, Inc. to provide construction support in
coordination with our construction management firm, Perteet Engineering, respond to project design
inquiries from the contractor, review equipment and materials submittals, process change orders,
perform design revisions as required by WSDOT and to coordinate the project with the future Highlands
to The Landing Pedestrian Facilities Project, and prepare as-built or record drawings from the
contractor’s marked-up plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement with KPG, Inc. in the amount of
$101,317.19 for construction support on the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden
Avenue North Widening) Project, increasing the agreement total from $45,000 to a new total of
$146,317.19, and extending the completion date from December 31, 2012 to March 31, 2013.
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 283 of 424
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:August 20, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
SUBJECT:South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden
Avenue North Widening) Project
Supplemental Agreement #3 with KPG, Inc. (CAG-11-215)
ISSUE:
Should the City supplement the existing agreement with KPG, Inc. to provide
engineering services during the construction phase on the South Lake Washington
Roadway Improvements (Garden Avenue North Widening) Project, and extend the
completion date of their agreement from December 31, 2012 to March 31, 2013?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the design agreement with KPG, Inc. in
the amount of $101,317.19 for design services during the construction phase of the
South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Avenue North Widening)
Project, increasing the agreement total from $45,000 to a new total of $146,317.19, and
extending the completion date from December 31, 2012 to March 31, 2013.
BACKGROUND:
KPG, Inc. completed plans and specifications for the South Lake Washington Roadway
Improvements (Garden Avenue North Widening) Project in 2010 but due to the lack of
funding we were unable to proceed with a construction contract at that time. In
December 2011 the City Council voted to accept a grant under the Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Rapid Action Program for this project. Because
nearly two years had passed it was necessary to update the documents to
accommodate specific requirements of the TIB grant and to address other issues that
had arisen since the previous documents had been completed.
On December 19, 2011, the contract CAG-11-215 was executed with KPG, Inc. in the
amount of $35,000 to do this update, with a completion date of March 31, 2012.
Supplemental Agreement #1 was later executed extending completion to
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 284 of 424
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 3
August 20, 2012
C:\Documents and Settings\lmoschetti\Desktop\kpg Sup #3csspt Issue Paperdjjrev.doc
December 31, 2012. Supplemental Agreement #2 was executed with KPG, Inc. adding
an additional $10,000 to the agreement amount, for development of traffic control
plans needed to gain WSDOT approval for daytime work with reduced lane widths,
which allowed the City to maintain the same number of lanes that existed prior to the
project starting along NE Park Drive/Logan Avenue North.
On April 2, 2012, City Council awarded ICON Materials a construction contract in the
amount of $1,968,690.65 to build the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements.
At that time it was determined that the scope and magnitude of the construction project
were such that the construction management workload was more than the
Transportation Systems Division could handle in-house.
Accordingly, the City contracted with Perteet, Inc. on May 4, 2012 (CAG-12-071) in an
amount not to exceed $199,506 to provide construction management services, which
included preparation of monthly invoicing and progress reports; facilitating and
recording construction meetings; maintaining a record management system; utilities
coordination; on-site observation and monitoring to observe the technical conduct,
compliance with contract documents (construction plans, specifications, and other
contract requirements), and progress of the construction; maintaining submittal and
technical inquiry tracking systems and submittals files; administering project
files/general records; tracking daily quantities; preparing the monthly construction
contract pay estimates; and communication of project activities and schedule with the
public.
Several tasks were intentionally omitted from the construction management contract
with Perteet, Inc. These tasks include design services to change the illumination system
to provide LED light sources, reviewing and responding to RFI’s (requests for
information) from the contractor, change order administration, and review of shop
drawing submittals. It was necessary to utilize the technical expertise of the project
design firm, KPG, Inc. to insure that the design intent is considered during the field
review process. Tasks 1.0 and 2.0 of this Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with KPG, Inc.
cover this work.
The federal ADA requirements have changed since the project was advertised for bids.
This necessitates a redesign of some of the pedestrian features of this project. This will
involve several meetings and consultations with the City, WSDOT and the contractor. All
of these activities of KPG, Inc. will be coordinated with the construction management
firm, Perteet Engineering to avoid duplication of efforts. Additionally, it is necessary to
coordinate this project with the future Highlands to The Landing Pedestrian Facilities
Project. The Highlands to Landing project will construct a pedestrian walkway along
Park Avenue North from east of I-405 west to the northeast corner of the intersection
being improved in this project. The configuration of the connection of the pedestrian
facilities to the northeast corner had not yet been finalized at the time of this
construction contract award, but it has since been finalized and will require changes to
the work being completed by the contractor as part of the intersection improvement
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 285 of 424
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 3 of 3
August 20, 2012
C:\Documents and Settings\lmoschetti\Desktop\kpg Sup #3csspt Issue Paperdjjrev.doc
project. It is logical these changes be designed by KPG, Inc. Task 3.0 of Supplemental
Agreement No. 3 with KPG, Inc. covers this work, while Task 4.0 covers the preparation
of as-built plan drawings. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the
$101,317.19 cost proposal to supplement KPG, Inc.’s agreement to provide these
services.
cc:Doug Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator – Transportation
Bob Hanson, Transportation Design Supervisor
Jim Seitz, Transportation Planning and Programming Supervisor
Juliana Fries, Transportation Program Coordinator
James Wilhoit, Transportation Project Manager
Connie Brundage, Transportation Administrative Secretary
File
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 286 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 287 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 288 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 289 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 290 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 291 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 292 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 293 of 424
8h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Supplemental Agreement #3 to CAG‐11‐215, with KPG, Inc., in the Page 294 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
The Boeing Company Lease LAG 10-001 to
Amendment No 1
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Amendment to Lease LAG 10-001 with The Boeing
Co.
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager (extension 7471)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Boeing Company is interested in a minor property swap located in the southeast corner of the
airport, near the old Boeing fuel farm. The purpose of the property swap is to improve the utility of
Boeing’s existing leased area in that portion of the airport. There will not be an increase or decrease in
Boeing’s lease payment to the City because the minimum monthly rent calculated for “Exhibit A – Lease
Parcel 5-08/5-09” of LAG-10-001 is a building rental rate and the minor change in the overall square
footage of the ground associated with the leased building does not make a material change to the
overall minimum monthly rental rate charged for the 5-08/5-09 Building.
The triangular shaped property transferred from Boeing to the City of Renton will eventually be added to
the Bosair leasehold. This addition to the Bosair leasehold enables a more logical and efficient
leasehold footprint for Bosair.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to lease LAG 10-001 with The Boeing
Company, which relates to a minor property swap located in the southeast corner of the Airport.
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 295 of 424
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:August 8, 2012
TO:Richard Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager (ext 7471)
SUBJECT:The Boeing Company Lease LAG 10-001 to Amendment No. 1
ISSUE:
Should the Council approve the Amendment to lease LAG 10-001 with The Boeing
Company for the increase in leased square footage?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to lease LAG 10-001
with The Boeing Company, which relates to a minor property swap located in the
southeast corner of the Airport.
BACKGROUND:
The Boeing Company is interested in a minor property swap located in the southeast
corner of the airport, near the old Boeing fuel farm. The purpose of the property swap
is to improve the utility of Boeing’s existing leased area in that portion of the airport.
The proposal is to swap a triangular portion of Boeing property with a rectangular
portion of property that currently is not leased. There will not be an increase or
decrease in Boeing’s lease payment to the City because the minimum monthly rent
calculated for “Exhibit A – Lease Parcel 5-08/5-09” of LAG-10-001 is a building rental rate
and the minor change in the overall square footage of the ground associated with the
leased building does not make a material change to the overall minimum monthly rental
rate charged for the 5-08/5-09 Building, which is leased by Boeing from the City.
The triangular shaped property transferred from Boeing to the City of Renton will
eventually be added to the Bosair leasehold. This addition to the Bosair leasehold
enables a more logical and efficient leasehold footprint for Bosair.
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 296 of 424
Richard Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 2
August 13, 2012
h:\file sys\air - airport, transportation services division\03 projects\01 tasks\agenda bills\2012 agenda bills\agenda bill - boeing
amendment\issuepaper - boeing amendment no 1.doc
cc:Doug Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator – Transportation
Connie Brundage, Transportation Administrative Secretary
Susan Campbell-Hehr, Airport Secretary
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 297 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 298 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 299 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 300 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 301 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 302 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 303 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 304 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 305 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 306 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 307 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 308 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 309 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 310 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 311 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 312 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 313 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 314 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 315 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 316 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 317 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 318 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 319 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 320 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 321 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 322 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 323 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 324 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 325 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 326 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 327 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 328 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 329 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 330 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 331 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 332 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 333 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 334 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 335 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 336 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 337 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 338 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 339 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 340 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 341 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 342 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 343 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 344 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 345 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 346 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 347 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 348 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 349 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 350 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 351 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 352 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 353 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 354 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 355 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 356 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 357 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 358 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 359 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 360 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 361 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 362 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 363 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 364 of 424
8i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment No. 1 to LAG‐10‐001, with The Boeing Company, related to Page 365 of 424
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Architectural Engineering Contract with SRG
Partnership, Inc. - Renton Aerospace Training
Center
Meeting:
Regular Council - 20 Aug 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Architectural Engineering Contract
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ben Dahle, Airport CIP Coordinator, (extension
7476)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Aviation/Transportation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $712,910 Transfer Amendment: $$2,462,500
Amount Budgeted: $ $2,462,500 Revenue Generated: $$2,462,500
Total Project Budget: $ $2,462,500 City Share Total Project: $ $0
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The state has recently awarded a direct appropriations grant to the City for construction of an
Aerospace Training Center at the Airport in the amount of $2,462,500 after state administration charges
with a 100 percent reimbursement rate. The project grant revenues and expenditures will be processed
through the Airport 422 CIP account (422.725111.016.594.46.63.000).
A request for proposals was published and SRG Partnership, Inc. was selected by a committee
comprised of staff from Renton Technical College, Facilities, and the Airport to perform architectural
and engineering (A-E) services. The negotiated A-E services fee for this project is $712,910.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Architectural Engineering contract with SRG Partnership, Inc. in the amount of $712,910 for
architectural and engineering services for the Renton Aerospace Training Center, with a project budget
of $2,462,500 (Airport CIP 422.725111), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract
documents.
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 366 of 424
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:August 20, 2012
TO:Richard Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager (ext 7471)
SUBJECT:Architectural Engineering Contract with SRG for the Renton
Aerospace Training Center
ISSUE:
Should the Council approve the Architectural Engineering contract with SRG Partnership,
Inc in the amount of $712,910 for the architectural and engineering design of the
Renton Aerospace Training Center?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Architectural Engineering contract with SRG Partnership, Inc. in the amount
of $712,910 for the architectural and engineering design of the Renton Aerospace
Training Center, with a project budget of $2,462,500 (Airport CIP 422.725111), and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract documents.
BACKGROUND:
The Renton Chamber of Commerce ground lease for the building at 300 Rainier Avenue
North expired on December 31, 2011, and was extended on a month-to-month basis
until April 30, 2012. Upon expiration of the month-to-month term of the lease, the
Renton Chamber of Commerce relocated to the former Spirit of Washington train
station. Ownership of the 300 Rainier building reverted back to the City upon expiration
of the original ground lease on December 31, 2012.
The state has recently awarded a direct appropriations grant to the City for construction
of an Aerospace Training Center at the Renton Airport. The City and stakeholders,
including Renton Technical Center (RTC), have chosen the 300 Rainier Avenue North
building as the location for the Renton Aerospace Training Center.
The Public Works Board is administering the state direct appropriations grant in the
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 367 of 424
Richard Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 2
August 20, 2012
H:\File Sys\AIR - Airport, Transportation Services Division\03 Projects\01 Tasks\Agenda Bills\2012 Agenda Bills\Agenda Bill - A&E
Renton Aerospace project\issuepaper – A&E contract.doc
amount of $2,500,000, less their administrative costs of $37,500, for a total grant award
to the City of $2,462,500.
The Renton Aerospace Training Center project will be funded completely through the
state direct appropriations grant and there will be no City match of funds required. The
project grant revenue and expenditures will be processed through the Airport 422 CIP
account, 422.725111.016.594.46.63.000 Renton Aerospace Training Center, with the
revenue budget of $2,462,500 and a matching expenditure budget of $2,462,500.
The Aerospace Training Center project is to build a facility and provide equipment to
help train critically needed aerospace workers in Washington. At this time, there is a
wide training gap for Boeing and aerospace suppliers throughout the state. This facility
will be a resource to help meet the immediate need for trained workers in the
aerospace industry and be a long-term aviation related asset to the community.
The scope of work for the Architectural Engineering contract includes providing design
services for the below mentioned improvements. Design services include developing
the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for construction. If selected, the
Architect/Engineer will perform construction administration services.
The proposed facility improvements include renovating the existing building at 300
Rainier Avenue North, or if it is more cost effective, to remove the existing building and
replace it with a new building. Part of the scope of work will be to analyze these two
options and make recommendations based on the findings. Improvements anticipated
in addition to the building include parking lot and driveway improvements, a new
loading dock, and garbage receptacle area.
cc:Doug Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator – Transportation
Connie Brundage, Transportation Administrative Secretary
Susan Campbell-Hehr, Airport Secretary
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 368 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 369 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 370 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 371 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 372 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 373 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 374 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 375 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 376 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 377 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 378 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 379 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 380 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 381 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 382 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 383 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 384 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 385 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 386 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 387 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 388 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 389 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 390 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 391 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 392 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 393 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 394 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 395 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 396 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 397 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 398 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 399 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 400 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 401 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 402 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 403 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 404 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 405 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 406 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 407 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 408 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 409 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 410 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 411 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 412 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 413 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 414 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 415 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 416 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 417 of 424
8j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract
in the amount of $712,910 with SRG Partnership, Inc. to perform
Page 418 of 424
10a. ‐ Extending the waiver of certain development and mitigation fees
for owner‐occupied & rental housing incentive programs (1st reading Page 419 of 424
10a. ‐ Extending the waiver of certain development and mitigation fees
for owner‐occupied & rental housing incentive programs (1st reading Page 420 of 424
10a. ‐ Extending the waiver of certain development and mitigation fees
for owner‐occupied & rental housing incentive programs (1st reading Page 421 of 424
10b. ‐ Extending the Multi‐Family Property Tax Exemption program (1st
reading 8/13/2012)Page 422 of 424
10b. ‐ Extending the Multi‐Family Property Tax Exemption program (1st
reading 8/13/2012)Page 423 of 424
10b. ‐ Extending the Multi‐Family Property Tax Exemption program (1st
reading 8/13/2012)Page 424 of 424